JUDGMENT : Sanju Panda, J. - In this writ application, the Petitioners have challenged the Order Dated 2G.6.2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 381 of 1993. 2. The facts leading to this case are as follows: There was a sanction of re-engagement of casual labourers under the Permanent Way Inspector, Soro in the year 1985 with clear instruction that only retrenched casual labourers would be engaged on production of their service certificates & verification of records. Pursuant thereto the Permanent Way Inspector, Soro, though engaged the casual labourers did not strictly follow the said instruction. Present Opp. Party Nos. 1 to 18 along with some others, in total 57 persons were found by the Permanent Way Inspector as not genuine retrenched labourers with regard to re-engagement of those persons. However, on a routine check/verification by the Finger Print Inspector of the Division, it was detected that 57 persons' genuineness was doubtful & he made a list of the said 57 persons & gave his remarks. On the basis of his adverse report, those persons were discharged from the list of retrenched casual labourers for re-engagemeni by the competent authority. Therefore, they represented & their case was taken to the Divisional Railway Manager, Kharagpur, who considered the matter & ordered for re-engagement of those persons in whose favour there was no identical remarks of the Finger Print Inspector on the ground of benefit of doubt. Thereafter, the Senior D.E.N. (L-IV), who is the controlling officer, reviewed all the 57 cases taking into consideration the remarks of the Finger Print Inspector as well as other records & prepared two statements. Statement 'A' contained the names of 28 persons against whom there was no positive remarks & they were given engagement as there was no reason for disqualifying them. Statement 'B' contained the names of the rest 29 persons including present Opp. Party Nos. 1 to 18 who were found to be not genuine & were not re-engaged. Therefore, the Opp. Party Nos. 1. to 18 .& Anr. filed O.A. No. 381 of 1993 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack. 3. The present Petitioners filed their counter affidavit to the said original application. After hearing the parties, on 20.5.1997 the Tribunal rejected the original application on merit. Therefore, the Opp. Party Nos. 1. to 18 .& Anr. filed O.A. No. 381 of 1993 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack. 3. The present Petitioners filed their counter affidavit to the said original application. After hearing the parties, on 20.5.1997 the Tribunal rejected the original application on merit. Against the said order, OJC No. 13726 of 1997 was filed before this Court & this Court on 4.2.2002, remanded the matter to the Tribunal to dispose of the said OA afresh as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months as if was found by this Court that while dismissing the original application, the Tribunal had not verified the original documents & on the basis of a xerox copy of the same it came to a conclusion that the documents were not genuine, & specifically held that from the letter dated 31.8.1999 of the Divisional Railway Manager, it appeared that there was no positive remark by the Finger Print Expert disqualifying any candidate. That document had also bearing on the finding recorded by the Tribunal. 4. On remand, the Tribunal allowed the original application. However, it is pertinent to mention that the Railway Administration neither produced the original documents for perusal & verification nor made any pleadings to that effect on 20.6.2002. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that without going through the original documents or examining the genuineness of the documents filed Opp. Party Nos. 1 to 18, as directed by this Court, the Tribunal passed the impugned order on 20.6.2002 by allowing the said original application. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed being perverse. Further, he submitted that enrolment of casual labourers in live register does not entitle them to automatic absorption. The casual labourers can be absorbed only when there will be regular vacancies & subject to fulfillment of the required terms & conditions basing on the Recruitment Rules. Since the Tribunal has not considered all those things, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6. Learned Counsel for the Opp. Parties submitted that taking into consideration all the materials available on record, the Tribunal has considered the original application in its proper perspective & passed a reasoned order, which need not be interfered with by this Court. 7. 6. Learned Counsel for the Opp. Parties submitted that taking into consideration all the materials available on record, the Tribunal has considered the original application in its proper perspective & passed a reasoned order, which need not be interfered with by this Court. 7. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court has to determine whether the Tribunal passed the impugned order taking into consideration all the materials available on record. 8. From the reply of the Petitioners, it appears that the Statement 'B' contained 29 names wherein the Finger Print Inspector had made specific remarks for disqualifying them for future employment against individual cases. It was not disputed that 28 persons against whom there was no positive remarks enlisted in Statement 'A' were reengaged in the railways whereas 29 persons including the present Opp. Parties 1 to 18 as mentioned in the Statement 'B' were not re- engaged, as past performance & conduct of such labourers are required to be considered for giving future employment in spite of the direction of this Court while remanding the application to the Tribunal. Neither they flied a new application for non-production of those documents nor did they produce the original documents reasons whereof were best known to the Petitioners as to why they suppressed the materials before the Tribunal while direction of this Court was passed in their presence & they were very much aware of it. 9. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal has passed the impugned order after taking into consideration the materials available before it & also given the reasons for passing the said order. Hence, there is no illegality in the impugned order so as to warrant interference of this Court. 10. Apart from the above as per the direction of the Apex Court in the case of Inder Pal Yadav and Ors., etc. v. Union of India and Ors. in W.P.(C). Nos. 147 & 320-69, 454, 4335-4434/83 etc. dated 18.4.1985, the following principle has been formulated by the Railway for absorption of casual labour. 11. Casual labour employed on projects (also known as "Project Casual Labour") may be treated as temporary (temporary status) on completion of 360 days of continuous employment. v. Union of India and Ors. in W.P.(C). Nos. 147 & 320-69, 454, 4335-4434/83 etc. dated 18.4.1985, the following principle has been formulated by the Railway for absorption of casual labour. 11. Casual labour employed on projects (also known as "Project Casual Labour") may be treated as temporary (temporary status) on completion of 360 days of continuous employment. It covers casual labour on projects who were in service as on 1.1.1981 & casual labour on projects, who though not in service on 1.1.1981, had been in service on Railway earlier & had already completed the above prescribed period (360 days) of continuous employment or have since completed or will complete the said prescribed period of continuous employment on re-engagement after 1.1.1981. 12. Therefore, the railway authority should have adhered to such scheme in stead of making undue delay. The writ application is accordingly dismissed. No costs. L. Mohapatra, J. 13. I agree Final Result : Dismissed