JUDGMENT : Barin Ghosh, J. (Delay Condonation Application No. 350 of 2012) 1. Considered the objection filed to the application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. Considered the averments made in the application for condonation of 119 days' delay in preferring the appeal. Reasons for delay, as furnished, do not inspire confidence of the Court, still then, inasmuch as a question of law has been raised, we allow the application for condonation of delay. (Special Appeal No. 09 of 2012) Facts, to which there appears to be no dispute, are as follows:- (a) In the year 1985, appellant engaged the respondents as casual labourers; (b) in the year 1987, respondents were retrenched from their service; (c) an industrial dispute, thus arisen, was decided by an award granted by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, New Delhi on 5th May, 2004, where it was held that retrenchment of the respondents was in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, it accordingly, directed, amongst others, that the respondents be reinstated in service; (d) in the meantime, on 10th September, 1993 a scheme known as “Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme of Government of India, 1993” came into force; (e) the said Scheme was a one-time scheme and not a continuous scheme; (f) while the appellant challenged the award before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, it reinstated the respondents on 8th February, 2004. Since then, the respondents continued to remain engaged by the appellant as casual labourers; (g) on 10th September, 2009 the Hon'ble Delhi High Court rejected the challenge thrown by the appellant to the aforementioned award; (h) in the meantime, in the year 2008, appellant gave temporary status to 14 casual labourers, who had instituted Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1719 of 2001 and, on which writ petition, a Division Bench of this Court passed an order on 22nd August, 2003 directing the appellant to frame a scheme of regularization of the petitioners in the said writ petition in phased manner; (i) but while those 14 casual labourers were given temporary status, respondents herein were not. Respondents, accordingly, approached this Court by filing a writ petition and contended that they could not be treated dissimilarly with those 14 casual labourers. Respondents, accordingly, approached this Court by filing a writ petition and contended that they could not be treated dissimilarly with those 14 casual labourers. The writ petition has been allowed by directing the appellant to consider the case of the respondents for temporary status, as the appellant has given temporary status to those 14 casual labourers. 3. In the instant appeal, it is being contended that those 14 casual labourers came to this Court, when the respondents herein were not in the employment of the appellant and they also obtained an order from this Court on 22nd August, 2003 directing the appellant to frame a scheme of regularization of those 14 casual labourers, when also the respondents herein were not in the employment of the appellant. It was submitted that in those circumstances, respondents herein could not compare themselves with those 14 casual labourers. 4. The fact remains that in terms of the directions of this Court dated 22nd August, 2003, no scheme of regularization of those 14 casual labourers was framed, instead those 14 casual labourers were granted temporary status in terms of the aforementioned Scheme of 1993. It is not the contention of the appellant that it granted temporary status under the said 1993 Scheme more than once. It is admitted by the appellant that it granted temporary status under the said 1993 Scheme to those 14 casual labourers in 2008. The fact remains that in 2008, respondents herein were also, admittedly, casual labourers of the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that having regard to the fact that the respondents herein were reinstated only on 8th May, 2005, they did not serve for minimum ten years to take the advantage of the said 1993 Scheme. The fact remains that the respondents were engaged as casual labourers in 1985 and they were retrenched in 1987 without complying with the statutory mandate contained in Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and, accordingly, their retrenchment was interfered with by the award as above. By reason of the declaration, as given in the award, it must be deemed, in law, that the said retrenchment did not take place at all. By reason of the declaration, as given in the award, it must be deemed, in law, that the said retrenchment did not take place at all. In such circumstances, it is a fallacy on the part of the appellant to contend that in 2008, respondents could not get the benefit of the said 1993 Scheme, for they did not work as casual labourers for ten years. 5. They were, in fact, not permitted to work because of an illegal action on the part of the appellant and, accordingly, it must be deemed, in law, that they did serve for a period in excess of ten years entitling them to the benefits of the said 1993 Scheme. Any proposition contrary thereto will tantamount to bless a declared illegal action. In the circumstances as above, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.