Judgment : The issue involved in these two writ petitions relates to absorption of contract workmen employed by M/s.Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the corporation”) consequent on the notification under Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) issued by the Central Government published in the Gazette of India extraordinary on 8.9.1994. 2. A batch of writ petitions being W.P.No.13551, 26676, 26677, 26678 and 27747 of 1997 came to be filed by the Contingent Contract Workers Union and individual workers for their absorption and regularization, consequent on abolition of engaging workmen on contract basis through Contract Labour. The said writ petitions came to be disposed of on 24.9.1998. The relevant portion of the order passed in the above-referred batch of writ petitions needs to be noted and it is thus:- “The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad is directed to proceed accordingly to verify the case of the concerned employees, as to whether they belong to or they do not belong to categories, of which the Contract Labour Act abolished vide notification dated 8.9.1994, keeping in view the following guidelines:- I. Separate list shall be prepared by him regarding those (1) appointed prior to 8.9.1994 notification under (a) on prohibited category and (b) on a category not prohibited and (2) those who were appointed after the notification dated 8.9.19094 under (a) on prohibited category and (b) on category not prohibited, and notification, if any, issued subsequently. II. There spondent-Corporation shall make available the records in respect of all those concerned employees and other relevant papers on the basis of which it may be determined as to whether the employees sought to be absorbed in O.N.G.C are covered or not by the categories for which contract labour has been abolished vide notification dated 8.9.1994. III. It will be open for the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad to follow any procedure for this purpose which he deems fit to arrive at the conclusion and it will also be open for the parties to produce materials before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad, in support of their cases in this regard. IV. III. It will be open for the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad to follow any procedure for this purpose which he deems fit to arrive at the conclusion and it will also be open for the parties to produce materials before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad, in support of their cases in this regard. IV. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad shall hear the petitioners as well as O.N.G.C before preparing its final report in this regard and it will be open for both the sides to raise all just and reasonable objections before him. V. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad shall sent copy of this report to O.N.G.C as well as the employees and such report shall be prepared and communicated by him at the earliest, but in no case later than 31.12.1998. VI. On the basis of the report of the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad, those employees who are found to be covered by the categories under the notification dated 8.9.1994 shall be taken up for absorption by O.N.G.C having due regard to the requirements of eligibility under the Rules and Regulations of O.N.G.C and appropriate orders shall be passed and served upon concerned employees on or before 31.01.1999. In case the O.N.G.C decides to challenge the report of the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad, it will be open for the O.N.G.C to indicate in such orders as above, that these orders are subject to the result of such challenge. VII. It will also be open for the concerned employees and the petitioners to challenge the decision of the O.N.G.C on the question of eligibility with reference to service regulations in case any employee found to be covered by the notification dated 8.9.1994 is aggrieved and is denied absorption by O.N.G.C. VIII. As regards the employees who are not found to be covered by the notification dated 8.9.1994 for the purpose of absorption in O.N.G.C on account of abolition of contract labour it will be open for the concerned petitioners or such employees to challenge that part of the report of the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad in appropriate forum in accordance with law. IX. IX. Till the report is made by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad and thereupon the action is taken and appropriate orders are issued by the O.N.G.C with regard to absorption or otherwise, and thereafter for a period of one month, no action shall be taken, till 5.3.1999 and no order shall be passed to the prejudice of the employees who are not absorbed and who are not found to be covered by the notification dated 8.9.1994 or by any subsequent notification by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad and their position and status as on today shall be maintained till 5.3.1999 except in cases of misconduct or indiscipline. X. After 5.3.1999 also, if at all services of any employees are sought to be terminated, the same shall not be done except in accordance with law”. 3. The corporation sought for review of the order passed in the aforesaid batch of writ petitions and the said Rev.W.P.M.P.No.39024 of 1998 came to be dismissed on 25.11.1998. 4. Pursuant to the directions given in the above-referred batch of writ petitions, the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad examined the records and heard the workmen individually and also the corporation and submitted report on 30th December 1998. The recommendations made by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad is that the corporation has to take Recruitment and Promotion Regulations of ONGC, 1980 as a yardstick in absorbing the workmen engaged in prohibited categories. The corporation constituted a committee for recommending the absorption of contract workers engaged in prohibited category. The Committee considered the report of the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad and made the following recommendations:- “(a) The Committee had recommended the posts to which the petitioners are to be absorbed on the lines of the absorption process adopted in the matter of W.P.No.1178/97 and 8020/97. The posts are indicated in Column No.10 of Annexure-II. The Committee also recommends absorption of the petitioners in the pay scale of Rs.2282/- (open ended). (b) Wherever the individual petitioners possess technical qualifications, they were recommended for absorption in technical line. Wherever basic qualification is not available, they were treated as unqualified. (c) Sl.No.08,58,59 and 101 do not possess the basic qualification of 10th class, but they possess the professional qualification like ITI and Heavy Vehicle Driving Licence. They have been treated as unqualified. (b) Wherever the individual petitioners possess technical qualifications, they were recommended for absorption in technical line. Wherever basic qualification is not available, they were treated as unqualified. (c) Sl.No.08,58,59 and 101 do not possess the basic qualification of 10th class, but they possess the professional qualification like ITI and Heavy Vehicle Driving Licence. They have been treated as unqualified. However, since they possess the professional qualification required for their respective trades, they may be considered for absorption whenever they are able to obtain the basic qualification of 10th class. (d) The Committee has recommended age relaxation irrespective of the number of years of service the individuals had put in for ONGC in line with 3(e) above. (e) In addition to the recommendations made in the Annexure-II, the Committee also recommends that the petitioners having been declared to be falling under the prohibited category by the Regional Labour Commissioner and accepted by the High Court, those petitioners, who are not possessing minimum qualifications as per MRPR 1980, may be converted into casual labour/contingent labour and may be covered by the Certified Standing Orders for Contingent Employees of ONGC in this regard. (f) In respect of Sl.No.42, the name of the individual is not consistent in all the certificates. In some certificates, the name of the father is indicated while in others the name of the mother is recorded. This requires verification. However, upon verification, if the name on the certificates turns out to be correct and belongs to him, he may be absorbed as Junior Attendant. (g) The Committee observed that some of the petitioners claimed to belong to OBC, however, they could not submit a valid proof. Therefore, their cases were considered in GENERAL category, and if, subsequently, they are able to submit OBC certificates from the competent authority, their status may be changed accordingly. (h) The absorption is recommended on the basis of the order of the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. The effective date of absorption is taken as the date of the Court order, i.e., 24.09.1998, as opined by Shri K.Srinivasa Murthy, panel Advocate, vide his letter dated 31.10.1999, placed at Annexure-III. (i) Inter-se seniority to be fixed based on the length of service rendered with M/s.Gowtami Educated Unemployed Welfare Society for ONGC. (j) The absorption is further subject to medical fitness certificate to be obtained from Dy. Chief Medical Officer, ONGC, Rajahmundry”. 5. (i) Inter-se seniority to be fixed based on the length of service rendered with M/s.Gowtami Educated Unemployed Welfare Society for ONGC. (j) The absorption is further subject to medical fitness certificate to be obtained from Dy. Chief Medical Officer, ONGC, Rajahmundry”. 5. The corporation challenged the order passed in W.P.No.26676 of 1997 and batch by filing Writ Appeal Nos.1652, 1653, 1654, 1655 and 1656 of 1999. The said Writ Appeals ended in dismissal on 22.11.1999. The corporation made an attempt to challenge the report of the Regional Joint Commissioner by filing W.P.No.11794 of 1999. The said writ petition came to be dismissed reserving liberty to the corporation to challenge the report only in accordance with the directions given in W.P.No.13551 of 1997 and batch. I deem it appropriate to refer the relevant portion of the order passed in W.P.No.11794 of 1999 and it reads thus:- “After the judgment was reserved on 1.9.1999, the petitioner filed W.P.M.P.No.20828/1999 seeking the permission of this Court to file the document No.S-16014/131/97-LW dated 8.7.1999, which was received by the petitioner on 21.7.1999. From reading of the said document, I find that it is an endorsement of the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, directing the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), A.T.I Campus, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad to duly consider the objections of the Management and dispose of by a speaking reasonable order under the intimation to the Ministry. It is not brought to my notice any provision of law, under which the Government of India could issue such a letter directing the authorities to review its own orders. As contended by the counsel for the respondents, before issuing this proceeding dated 8.7.1999, the authorities have not heard either the Labour Commissioner or the workers/writ petitioners in W.P.No.13551/1997 and batch. In these circumstances, the judgment of this Court passed in W.P.No.13551/1997 and batch as having become final, it is the duty of the parties to the writ petitions to give effect to the said order. As I have already noted above, whatever be the reasons of the alleged illegality in the report of the Joint Commissioner, the petitioner-corporation is entitled to challenge the report only in accordance with the directions of this Court in W.P.No.13551/1997 and batch. Therefore, the said proceedings of the Government of India dated 8.7.1999, shall not come in the way of implementing the order of this Court passed in W.P.No.13551/1997 and batch. Therefore, the said proceedings of the Government of India dated 8.7.1999, shall not come in the way of implementing the order of this Court passed in W.P.No.13551/1997 and batch. Accordingly, this W.P.M.P.No.20828/1999 is hereby disposed of with the above observations. For the above reasons, I do not find any merits in this writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.” 6. The corporation taking into consideration the report submitted by the committee absorbed the contract labour who have possessed the requisite qualifications as prescribed in the Modified Recruitment & Promotion Regulations, 1980 (MRPR, 1980) . With regard to contract workers, who do not possess the requisite qualifications have been taken as casual labour under the proceeding dated 6.11.1999 communicated to the contract labour individually. The individuals, who have been absorbed as casual labour, are:- “STATEMENT SHOWING THE PETITIONER ELIGIBILITY POSTS IN ONGC LTD. QUALIFICATIONS POST ELIGIBLE as per Sl. Name of As per recruitment No. the Petitioner recruitment and ACADAMIC TECH and promotion promotion regulations- regulations 1980 of ONGC. 1980 of ONGC. 1 K.YESU VIII CLASS HMV VIII PASS AND ASSISTANT LICENCE RELEVANT OPERATOR EXPERIENCE (HEAVY EQUIPMENT) 2. S.N.MEERA SAHEB IX CLASS ” ” ” 3 S.S.5ALEEM IX CLASS ” ” ” 4 R.SAHAOEVUDU IX CLASS NIL VIII PASS ATTENDANT GD-III 5 G.N.MANESW ARA VIII CLASS IT.I VIII PASS ” RAO FITTER 6 CHSUBRAHMANYAM IX CLASS NIL VIII PASS ” 7 K.D.SRINIVASA RAO IX CLASS NIL VIII PASS ” 8 K.5RIRAMULU IX CLASS NIL VIII PASS ” 9 MSATYANARAYANA IX CLASS NIL VIII PASS ” 10 D.APP A RAO IX CLASS NIL VIII PASS 11 SJAGANNADHAM IX CLASS NIL VIII PASS 12 G.S.S.KALYAN IX CLASS NIL VIII PASS 13 CH.SURYA IX CLASS NIL VIII PASS . PRAKASHA RAO 14 G.PARAMANANDAM IX CLASS NIL VIII PASS 15 J.SATYANANDAM IX CLASS NIL VIII PASS 16 CH.V.V.SATYA- VIII CLASS NIL VIII PASS NARAYANA 17 S.SATY ANRA YANA IX CLASS NIL VIII PASS 18 V.5ATYANARAYANA IX CLASS NIL VIII PASS 19 G.VENKA TESW ARA IX CLASS NIL VIII PASS RAO 20 V.KAMALA DEVI VIII CLASS NIL VIII PASS 21 KV.V.S.NARA Y ANA IX CLASS NIL VIII PASS MURTHY 22 Y.LAKSHMANARAO IX CLASS NIL VIII PASS 23 V.BABURAO VIII CLASS NIL VIII PASS 24 C.V.V.SATY A- IX CLASS NIL VIII PASS NARAYANA 25 NDEV A KUMAR IX CLASS NIL VIII PASS 26 KP AP A RAO IX CLASS NIL VIII PASS 27 S.KRISHNA RAO IX CLASS NIL VIII PASS 28 GSRINIVASA KUMAR IX CLASS NIL VIII PASS 29 S.SATYANARAYANA IX CLASS NIL VIII PASS 30 KG ARATA RAJU VIII CLASS NIL VIII PASS 31 C.TRINIDHA RAO IX CLASS NIL VIII PASS 32 KPURUSHOTHAM IX CLASS NIL VIII PASS 33 M.RAJA RAO VI CLASS NIL LITERATE MALI GO-III 34 KGOPI VII CLASS NIL LITERATE MALI G-III "'" 7. These thirty-four individuals filed Writ Petition No.1307 of 2000 assailing the action of the corporation in appointing them as casual labour instead of absorbing them to the posts of Assistant Operator, Attendant Grade-III and Mali Grade-III by applying the Recruitment and Promotion Regulations of 1980. According to them, their right to get absorbed crystallised as on 8.9.1994 or on the date of their initial appointment as contract labour. Therefore, they were to be considered for absorption in accordance with the Recruitment & Promotion Regulations, 1980 and not Modified Recruitment & Promotion Regulations, 1980. As per the 1980 regulations, VIII pass and relevant experience is sufficient for appointment to the category of Assistant Operator (Heavy Equipment) or Attendant Gr.III and a literate is eligible to be appointed as Mali Grade.III. These categories are far superior to the category of casual labour. 8. The corporation filed Writ Petition No.13479 of 2002 questioning the very report dated 30.12.1998 of the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad. 9. C.Vijay Kumar, Deputy Chief Legal Advisor of ONGC, K.G. Project, Rajahmundry, has sworn to the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition No.13479 of 2002. These categories are far superior to the category of casual labour. 8. The corporation filed Writ Petition No.13479 of 2002 questioning the very report dated 30.12.1998 of the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad. 9. C.Vijay Kumar, Deputy Chief Legal Advisor of ONGC, K.G. Project, Rajahmundry, has sworn to the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition No.13479 of 2002. The grounds set out in the affidavit to challenge the report of the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad, are: a) The report of the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad, is incorrect and illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice as the same had been prepared and submitted on the basis of an one-sided enquiry conducted behind the back of the petitioner. b) The procedure adopted by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad, for conducting the verification is contrary to the principles of natural justice and the directions given by this Hon’ble Court in the earlier batch of writ petitions being W.P.No.13551 of 1997 and batch. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad, received one-sided version as given by the workmen about the nature of their work and without verifying the same with the Corporation’s records had made classification of the workers as if they are all working in prohibited categories of works which is an error apparent on the face of record. c) The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad, prepared the report without giving sufficient opportunity to the Corporation. d) The report of the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad, is contrary to the findings and directions given by this Court in W.P.No.13551 of 1997 and batch, dated 24.09.1998. e) The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad, has not verified any record before making classification of the workmen. f) The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad, exceeded his jurisdiction and committed error in recording a finding on issues which do not formed part of the reference. g) The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad, committed error in recording a finding with regard to the workers such as Generator Operators, Telephone Mechanics etc. as workers covered by the categories in the notification dated 08.09.1994. h) The findings recorded by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad, are contrary to the statements submitted by the workmen themselves in their Bio-Data filed along with the writ petitions in W.P.No.13551 of 1997 and batch. as workers covered by the categories in the notification dated 08.09.1994. h) The findings recorded by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad, are contrary to the statements submitted by the workmen themselves in their Bio-Data filed along with the writ petitions in W.P.No.13551 of 1997 and batch. In a nutshell, the plea of the Corporation is that the workmen are not entitled for absorption in any post and the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad, exceeded the scope of his enquiry and therefore, the report dated 30.12.1998 submitted by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad, is erroneous, illegal and void and therefore, liable to be set aside. 10. Heard Sri Kakara Venkata Rao, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation; Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the workmen, who have been absorbed as casual labour and Sri J.Kanakaiah, learned counsel appearing for the workmen, who have been considered and absorbed in their respective posts as per their eligibility as recommended by the Committee for absorption in terms of the report submitted by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the Corporation submits that earlier writ petitions, being W.P.No.13551 of 1997 and batch, came to be disposed off keeping in view the proposition of law laid down in Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union (1997) 9 SCC 377 , and as the proposition of law laid down in the said decision is no more good law in view of the subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Water Front Workers AIR 2001 SC 3527 = (2001) 7 SCC 1 = 2001 (6) SUPREME 602 , the contract labour consequent on the issuance of notification, dated 08.09.1994, has no vested right to seek absorption. He would also contend that the Corporation considered the claims of the workmen basing on the directions issued by this Court in earlier writ petitions being W.P.No.13551 of 1997 and batch and that the report of the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad can not be given effect, in view of the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India case and that there is no obligation on the part of the Corporation to absorb the contract labour in categories wherein contract labour system has been abolished by virtue of notification, dated 08.09.1994. Much emphasis has been laid by the learned counsel on para.122 of the judgment in Steel Authority of India Ltd. case (2nd supra), which reads as hereunder: “122. The upshot of the above discussion is outlined thus : (1)(a) Before 28/01/1986, the determination of the question whether Central Government or the State Government, is the appropriate Government in relation to an establishment, will depend, in view of the definition of the expression "appropriate Government" as stood in the CLRA Act, on the answer to a further question, is the industry under consideration carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government or does it pertain to any specified controlled industry; or the establishment of any railway, cantonment board, major port, mine or oilfield or the establishment of banking or insurance company? If the answer is in the affirmative, the Central Government will be the appropriate Government; otherwise in relation to any other establishment the Government of the State in which the establishment was situated, would be the appropriate Government. (b) After the said date in view of the new definition of that expression, the answer, to the question referred to above, has to be found in Cl. (a) of S.2 of the Industrial Disputes Act; if (i) the concerned Central Government company / undertaking or any undertaking is included therein eo nomin, or (ii) any industry is carried on (a) by or under the authority of the Central Government or, (b) by railway company; or (c) by specified controlled industry, then the Central Government will be the appropriate Government otherwise in relation to any other establishment, the Government of the State in which that other establishment is situated; will be the appropriate Government. 2(a) A Notification under S.10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment has to be issued by the appropriate Government : (1)after consulting with the Central Advisory Board or the State Advisory Board, as the case may be, and (2) having regard to (i)conditions of work and benefits provided for the contract labour in the establishment in question; and (ii)other relevant factors including those mentioned in sub-section (2) of S.10 (b)inasmuch as the impugned notification issued by the Central Government on 9/12/1976 does not satisfy the aforesaid requirements of S.10, it is quashed but we do so prospectively i.e. from the date of this judgment and subject to the clarification that on the basis of this judgment no order passes or no action taken giving effect to the said Notification on or before the date of this judgment, shall be called in question in any Tribunal or Court including a High Court if it has otherwise attained finality and/or it has been implemented. (3) Neither S. 10 of the CLRA Act nor any other provision in the Act, whether expressly or by necessary implication, provides for automatic absorption of contract labour on issuing a notification by appropriate Government under sub-section (1) of S. 10 prohibiting employment of contract labour, in any process, operation or other work in any establishment. Consequently the principal employer cannot be required to order absorption of the contract labour working in the concerned establishment. Consequently the principal employer cannot be required to order absorption of the contract labour working in the concerned establishment. (4) We overrule the judgment of this Court in Air India's case (supra) prospectively and declare that any direction issued by any industrial adjudicator/any Court including High Court, for absorption of contact labour following the judgment in Air India's case (supra), shall hold good and that the same shall not be set aside, altered or modified on the basis of this judgment in cases where such a direction has been given effect to and it has become final.(1997 AIR SCW 430 : AIR 1997 SC 645 : 1997 LabIC 365) (5) On issuance of prohibition notification under S. 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute brought before it by any contract labour in regard to conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question whether the contractor has been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or for supply of contract labour for work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance of various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of the benefit thereunder. If the contract is found to be genuine but a mere camouflage, the so-called contract labour will have to be treated as employees of the principal employer who shall be directed to regularize the services of the contract labour in the concerned establishment subject to conditions as may be specified by it for that purpose in the light of para 6 hereunder. (6) If the contract is found to be genuine and prohibition notification under S. 10(1) of the CLRA Act in respect of the concerned establishment has been issued by the appropriate Government, prohibiting employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work of any establishment and where in such process, operation or other work of the establishment the principal employer intends to employ regular workmen he shall give preference to the erstwhile contract labour, if otherwise found suitable and, if necessary, by relaxing the condition as to maximum age appropriately taking into consideration the age of the workers at the time of their initial employment by the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to academic qualifications other than technical qualifications.” 12. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 , wherein the Supreme Court held that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right. 13. It is contended by the learned counsel that the contract labour consequent on abolition of contract employment in specified categories are not entitled for automatic absorption. In support of his submission, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Official Liquidator v. Dayanand (2008) 10 SCC 1 , wherein it has been held that the creation and abolition of posts, formation and structuring/restructuring of cadres, prescribing the source and mode of recruitment and qualifications and criteria of selection, etc., are matters which fall within the exclusive domain of the employer. Although the decision of the employer to create or abolish posts or cadres or to prescribe the source or mode of recruitment and laying down the qualification, etc., is not immune from judicial review, the Court will always be extremely cautious and circumspect in tinkering with the exercise of discretion by the employer. It has been further held that the Court cannot sit in appeal over the judgment of the employer and ordain that a particular post or number of posts be created or filled by a particular mode of recruitment. The power of judicial review can be exercised in such matters only if it is shown that the action of the employer is contrary to any constitutional or statutory provisions or is patently arbitrary or vitiated by mala fides. 14. Learned counsel by placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. & Ors. The power of judicial review can be exercised in such matters only if it is shown that the action of the employer is contrary to any constitutional or statutory provisions or is patently arbitrary or vitiated by mala fides. 14. Learned counsel by placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. & Ors. v. Rekha Rani 2011 (2) Supreme 717 contends that a casual worker has no right to the post and this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot regularize an employee. Much emphasis has been laid on paras.11 to 13 of the said judgment, which read as hereunder: “11. A regular appointment can only be made after selection by the U.P. Public Service Commission. Also, admittedly, the respondent was only a temporary employee and had not worked after 16.4.1991. 12. It has been held in a recent decision of this Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Daya Lal ( 2011 (2) SCC 429 ) following the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi ( (2006) 4 SCC 1 ) that the High Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 cannot regularize an employee. Merely because some others had been regularized does not give any right to the respondent. An illegality cannot be perpetuated. 13. Also, it is well settled that a temporary employee has no right to the post vide State of U.P. vs. Kaushal Kishore Shukla (1991) 1 SCC 691 . The respondent’s service was not terminated as a measure of punishment. Hence, no opportunity of hearing was necessary for terminating her service. The direction for her reinstatement is not sustainable as she was only a temporary employee and hence had no right to the post.” 15. Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the workmen, who have been absorbed as casual labour, submits that the petitioners are not asking for absorption or regularization and therefore, the proposition of law laid down in Umadevi’s case (3 supra) is not relevant for the case on hand. He would also contend that the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad, recommended for absorption of the workmen working on prohibited categories of employees in the Corporation in accordance with the Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, 1980. He would also contend that the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad, recommended for absorption of the workmen working on prohibited categories of employees in the Corporation in accordance with the Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, 1980. Whereas, the Committee constituted by the Corporation recommended for absorption of the workmen engaged on prohibited categories in the Corporation in accordance with the Modified Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, 1980. In a way, his contention is if the old Regulations are taken into consideration, all the contract labour, who have been appointed as casual labour, deserve for absorption in regular appointment. The learned Senior Counsel took me to the qualifications prescribed for certain posts in the Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, 1980 and Modified Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, 1980. The Modified Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, 1980, came into effect from 01.01.1997. Learned Senior Counsel would further contend that the right of the contract labour working on prohibited categories to get absorbed as regular employees crystallized as on 08.09.1994 and therefore, Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, 1980, are to be made applicable and indeed the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad, had recommended for regularization of services of contract labour in accordance with the Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, 1980, of the Corporation, in which case, the committee appointed by the Corporation cannot take a different stand for absorption of the contract labour working on prohibited categories in the Corporation as regular employees. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel took me to the judgment of the learned single judge of the Madras High Court in W.P.No.21517 of 2000 (M.George Ravisekharan and others vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation and others) and batch, dated 02.08.2006. In the cited judgment, the Corporation is a party. The dispute therein was with regard to absorption of contract employees working as Marine Assistant Radio Operators as regular employees consequent on the notification, dated 08.09.1994 abolishing of contract labour in respect of certain specified categories. The learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court delivered the judgment keeping in view the proposition of law laid down in Air India Statutory Corporation’s case (1 supra). The learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court delivered the judgment keeping in view the proposition of law laid down in Air India Statutory Corporation’s case (1 supra). In an earlier round when the matter went to the Supreme Court, the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Corporation/ONGC in the said case, stated that those of the workmen who are found to be qualified in terms of the appropriate regulations as in force at the relevant time shall be absorbed as contemplated by the judgment in Air India Statutory Corporation Limited’s case (1 supra). The learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court taking into consideration the undertaking given before the Supreme Court in the above referred case directed the Corporation to absorb the contract employees engaged on the prohibited categories. Paras.31 to 33 of the cited judgment need to be noted and they are thus: “It was also argued by the learned senior counsel that the petitioners’ have no legal right to seek the enforcement of the letter dated 4.6.1999 written by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas recommending the petitioners’ claim for absorption as Assistant Marine Radio Operators and the report of the one-man committee. It may be so, but in the present case the core issue is whether the respondent Corporation had honoured their undertaking given before the Supreme Court in true sprit of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Air India Statutory Corporation & Ors. I have already held that the respondent corporation had adopted the dubious method of absorption just to deprive the legitimate rights of the petitioners and that the exercise of absorption was a camouflage. The respondents have not produced any material to the satisfaction of the Court to show that they have sincerely considered the cases of the qualified petitioners for absorption as Marine Assistant Radio Operators in terms of the undertaking given by them before the Supreme Court that those of the 56 workmen who are found to be qualified in terms of the appropriate regulations, as in force at the relevant time, shall be absorbed as contemplated by the judgment in Air India Statutory Corporation. 32. 32. Therefore, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case in the light of the report of the committee, recommendation made by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Air India Statutory Corporation case, cited supra, I am of the considered view that the absorption of the petitioners by the respondent corporation as Junior Helpers with the pay of Rs.2282/- old basic bottom of Class IV cadre was not fair and proper and certainly not in strict compliance of the undertaking given by the respondent corporation before the Supreme Court. On the other hand, I am of the considered view that the petitioners are entitled to be absorbed as Marine Assistant Radio Operators. 33. In the result, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. The respondents are directed to absorb the petitioners as Marine Assistant Radio Operators with effect from 8.9.1994 on the basis of the abolition of contract labour and as per the recommendations dated 4.6.1999 of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India, to the first respondent and the approval of the competent authority as communicated in the fax, dated 23.9.1999 to the third and fourth respondents with all monetary benefits and all other attendant benefits. If for any reason, there is no cadre of Marine Assistant Radio Operator or there are no sufficient posts are available in the cadre of Marine Assistant Radio Operators to accommodate all the petitioners, the respondents are directed to give “pay protection” to the petitioners and sanction them the scale of pay as applicable to the Marine Assistant Radio Operators as recommended by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas.” 16. The Corporation filed Writ Appeal being W.A.No.1290 of 2006, before the Division Bench of Madras High Court, assailing the judgment of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.No.21518 of 2000. The Writ Appeal being W.A.No.1290 of 2006 (Oil and Natural Gas Corporation and others vs. M.George Ravisekharan and others) ended in dismissal on 19.12.2006 on the ground that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Limited’s case (2 supra) has only prospective in operation. The Corporation unsuccessfully challenged the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court by filing Civil Appeal No.765 to 767 of 2008 before the Supreme Court of India. The said appeals ended in dismissal. 17. The Corporation unsuccessfully challenged the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court by filing Civil Appeal No.765 to 767 of 2008 before the Supreme Court of India. The said appeals ended in dismissal. 17. The stand of the petitioners before the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court was that their absorption orders reached finality before the judgment of the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Limited’s case (2 supra). 18. Sri J.Kanakaiah, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/workmen, who have been considered and absorbed in their respective posts as per the eligibility criteria, submits that the Corporation having implemented the report and absorbed the workmen as regular employees and allowed further promotions, cannot be permitted to contend that the absorption is not in accordance with the rules in force. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Jiten Kumar Sahoo & Ors. v. Chief General Manager, Mahanandi Coalfields Ltd. & Ors. 2011 (1) Supreme 633 . 19. The points that call for adjudication in these Writ Petitions are: 1) Whether the report of the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad, is hit by the violation of principles of natural justice? 2) Whether the appointment of the writ petitioners in W.P.No.1307 of 2000 as casual labourers is in accordance with the Recruitment and Promotion Regulations in force? 20. Point No.1: It is the plea of the Corporation that the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad, has not provided sufficient opportunity to place on record that some of the workmen whoapproached the Court are not working on prohibited categories on contract basis. I have gone through the report of the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad. It is explicit from the report that the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad, considered profiles furnished by the Corporation in respect of 168 workmen. Had the Corporation not participated in the enquiry, there was no other source for the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad, to incorporate the information in the report. The report is so exhaustive that no particulars of the individual workman with regard to his qualifications and nature of employment found missing. Had the Corporation not participated in the enquiry, there was no other source for the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad, to incorporate the information in the report. The report is so exhaustive that no particulars of the individual workman with regard to his qualifications and nature of employment found missing. Though the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation tries to convince that the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad, has not allowed sufficient opportunity to the Corporation, he failed to bring to my notice any material to show that the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad, incorporated the information in the report not otherwise from the records placed before him. Therefore, I find that the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad, has given sufficient opportunity to the Corporation and considered the job profile and bio-data of the workmen working on the prohibited categories and submitted the report. The report of the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad, does not suffer from any violation of principles of natural justice. It is also trite to note that the Corporation itself constituted a Committee on absorption of the workmen, who are engaged on prohibited categories as regular employees. The Committee comprises the following persons: 1) Dr.Manoj Asthana, Dy. General Manager (Geology); 2) Shri N.G.Sutradhar, Dy. General Manager (Electrical); 3) Shri P.Vijay Kumar, Head of P&A 4) Shri R.K.Jain, Dy. Manager (F&A); 5) Shri P.Bhaskara Rao, Dy.Manager (P&A) – Rep. of Regl. Office, SRBC. The Committee constituted by the Corporation considered the report of Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad, and recommended for absorption of workmen, who possessed requisite qualification. 21. The Corporation never contended before the Committee that Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad, submitted report without following the principles of natural justice or the report is based on surmises and conjectures. Since the Corporation itself appointed the Committee to consider the feasibility of acceptance of the report submitted by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad, it is impermissible for the Corporation to contend that the report of the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad, is in violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, this point is answered against the Corporation and in favour of the workmen. 22. Point No.2: It is contended by Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel that the Corporation ought to have considered the Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, 1980, instead of Modified Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, 1980. Accordingly, this point is answered against the Corporation and in favour of the workmen. 22. Point No.2: It is contended by Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel that the Corporation ought to have considered the Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, 1980, instead of Modified Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, 1980. In a way, his contention is if Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, 1980, are taken into consideration, most of the workmen who are appointed as casual labour possessed the requisite qualifications, in which case, they are to be absorbed as regular employees in a suitable post. 23. It is trite to note that the directions in the earlier batch of writ petitions came to be issued keeping in view the proposition of law laid down in Air India Statutory Corporation’s case (1 supra) and subsequently, the law laid down in the cited decision came to be reversed by the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Limited’s case (2 supra). Indeed when the Corporation challenged the report of the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad, on earlier occasion, this Court directed the Corporation to implement the directions given in the report before challenging the same. Pursuant to the said directions, the Corporation implemented the directions given in the earlier batch of writ petitions and moved Writ Petition No.13479 of 2002 questioning the report of the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad. By the date of judgment of the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd.’s case (2 supra), no finality has been reached with regard to the absorption of the contract labour engaged on prohibited categories in the Corporation. When the cases of the workmen came up for absorption, the Modified Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, 1980, came into operation. Therefore, any appointment or promotion to any category is to be governed by the Modified Recruitment and Promotion Regulations. The Committee appointed by the Corporation has examined the material in right perspective and recommended for absorption of the workmen working on the prohibited categories in accordance with the Modified Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, 1980. Indisputably the workmen who have been engaged as casual labour do not possess the requisite qualifications prescribed in the Modified Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, 1980. In that view of the matter, there cannot be any Mandamus to the Corporation to appoint the workmen contrary to the statutory Modified Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, 1980. Indisputably the workmen who have been engaged as casual labour do not possess the requisite qualifications prescribed in the Modified Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, 1980. In that view of the matter, there cannot be any Mandamus to the Corporation to appoint the workmen contrary to the statutory Modified Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, 1980. Hence, this point is answered in favour of the Corporation and against the workmen. 24. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions fail and they are hereby dismissed. No costs.