JUDGMENT By Court.-Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The appellant is aggrieved against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 20th January, 2004 passed in CWJC No. 1822 of 1997(R), whereby the appellant's writ petition challenging the award dated 26th July, 1996 passed in Reference Case No. 306 of 1986 by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2, Dhanbad has been dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the workmen were not in employment and, therefore, the workmen could not have been regularized, nor there could have arisen question of regularization of the workmen because regularization can be of the employee, who are in service. It is submitted that there were no vacant post and, therefore, the workmen could not have been regularized. It is also submitted that it was the burden upon the workmen to prove their case that they worked for requisite day for getting the benefit of regularization. 4. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the reasons given in the impugned award as well as the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Since the award has been upheld then operative part of the award is operative, which clearly declared that the Tribunal cannot give any direction to the Management of the BCCL to absorb the workmen in the job, if no vacancy of that job or any other job of like category is vacant, right now. However, after so declaring, it has been observed that a direction is given to the Management to prepare a list as per the Annexure of the reference to regularize workmen within six months from the date of implementation of the award and during the intervening period they should be given job of casual nature of same category having equal pay of permanent employees without fail. 5. It appears from the said operative part of the award that the plea of the Management was accepted by the Tribunal that if there is no vacancy there cannot arise question of regularization. However, the Tribunal passed the order to give job to the workmen of casual nature of same category having equal pay of permanent employees, but alongwith this direction it has been directed that the workmen shall be regularized within six months. However, the Tribunal passed the order to give job to the workmen of casual nature of same category having equal pay of permanent employees, but alongwith this direction it has been directed that the workmen shall be regularized within six months. This direction on the face of it is contrary to the direction rendered above, wherein the Tribunal held that direction cannot be issued for regularization of the workmen when no vacancy is there. Therefore, that part of the award deserves to be set aside, whereby the appellant has been directed to regularize the workmen within six months from the date of implementation of the award. So far giving job of temporary nature is concerned, that also could have been given, according to the need. At this juncture, it will be appropriate to mention here that the persons who were not in job, sought regularization and so far legal position is concerned, who is not in job, cannot seek regularization is there, but here in this case, distinguishable feature is that the Management itself decided and offered its Scheme to the workmen by entering into a settlement with the Union of Workmen and, therefore, the plea as such cannot be applied to the facts of the case, but at the same time when there is no vacancy, there could not have been any regularization and, therefore, so far claim of regularization of the workmen, who were not in job, was flowing from the decision taken by the Management itself and its enforcement was sought by raising the industrial dispute, which was initially raised and decided by the Tribunal. 6. In view of the above reason, the award is modified and it is held that the appellant shall examine the vacancies with reference to the relevant dates of their decision i.e., 2nd March, 1983 and shall prepare seniority list of these workmen and find out the number of vacancies and if vacancies were available on that date, employment and regularization will be offered to the workmen. 7. In view thereof, with the above modification, this Letters Patent Appeal is partly allowed to the extent mentioned above.