Judgment :- Elipe Dharma Rao, J. 1. Since the issue involved in all the writ appeals is one and the same, the following common judgment is passed:- These writ appeals are filed against the common order dated 9.2.2009 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos.2307 to 2315 of 2000, whereby the writ petitions were dismissed confirming the order dated 21.4.1999 passed by the first respondent Labour Court in I.D.Nos.73, 79, 81, 82, 89, 91, 92, 128 and 256 of 1991. 2. The second respondent in each writ appeals filed the petitions in I.D.Nos.73, 79, 81, 82, 89, 91, 92, 128 and 256 of 1991 under Section 2(a)(ii) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the first respondent for their reinstatement along with backwages. The stand of the appellant is that the second respondent in each writ appeals were appointed in the context of a temporary vacancy and no appointment order was issued for their appointment whenever the necessity arises, they were appointed and were paid the wages and hence they are not entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service along with backwages. However, the Labour Court, in its order dated 21.4.1999, directed reinstatement of the second respondent in each writ appeals with continuity of service but without backwages. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Bank submits that the Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms.No.86 Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department dated 12.3.2001 for regularizing the employees, who were recruited by various Co-operative Societies during the period between 9.7.1980 and 11.3.2001, but the second respondent in each writ appeals were engaged prior to the said date. Moreover, they were not appointed through employment exchange. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the respondents and perused the materials available on record. 5. The Tribunal, after going through the materials placed on record and also after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, granted the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service, but without backwages. Learned single Judge, while concurring with the award passed by the Labour Court, held as follows:- “6. It was stated that the Government of Tamilnadu issued G.O.Ms.No.86, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department dated 12.3.2001 regularising employees who were recruited by various Co-operative Societies during the period from 9.7.1980 to 11.3.2001. Learned single Judge, while concurring with the award passed by the Labour Court, held as follows:- “6. It was stated that the Government of Tamilnadu issued G.O.Ms.No.86, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department dated 12.3.2001 regularising employees who were recruited by various Co-operative Societies during the period from 9.7.1980 to 11.3.2001. When the said G.O. was sought to be enforced, the Sate resisted the enforcement of the said G.O. The said matter was dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Justine L. v. The Registrar of Coop. Societies, reported in 2002 (4) CTC 385 . The Division Bench in para 19(i) has held as follows:- “(i) that G.O.Ms.No.86, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department dated 12.3.2001, has got the effect of only authorizing the regularization of the employees recruited by the cooperative societies for the period from 9.7.1980 to 11.3.2001 exempting the intervention of employment exchange.” 9.) Therefore, the contention of the management that the workmen cannot be reinstated as they have not come through the employment exchange cannot hold water. The Government Order can be construed as exempting those employees from getting routed through employment exchange before the date of the Government Order viz. 12.3.2001. In the said judgment, though this Court has held that unless there are sanctioned posts, regularization cannot be considered in terms of the G.O.Ms.No.86, in the present case, the workmen did not claim their right of regularization in terms of that Government Order. On the contrary, they placed reliance on Chapter VA of the Industrial Disputes Act. The contention made in the affidavit that the engagement of the workmen was on contingency basis and no appointment orders were issued so as to enable the workmen to seek protection from the purview of Chapter VA of the Industrial Disputes Act also does not have any merit. It is rather too late for the management to contend that there was no master and servant relationship with the contesting respondent. The attempt by the management to contend that since there is no specific order of appointment, the question of termination does not arise cannot be accepted since, Section 25J(2) has a non obstante clause and overrides contracts to the contrary. The attempt by the management to contend that since there is no specific order of appointment, the question of termination does not arise cannot be accepted since, Section 25J(2) has a non obstante clause and overrides contracts to the contrary. The further attempt of the management to contend that this would not amount to a retrenchment in terms of Section 2(oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, cannot also be accepted, because there is no fixed contract and in some cases, workers have worked for more than a decade.” 6. Learned single Judge as well as the Labour Court dealt with the merits of the case in detail and passed the order. In view of the same, we see no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings rendered by the Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge. The writ appeals are dismissed. The appellant-Bank shall implement the impugned order of the learned single Judge as expeditiously as possible. 7. During pendency of the writ appeals, by order dated 17.6.2009, this Court directed the appellant-Bank to deposit a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- and accordingly, the appellant deposited the said amount. On such deposit, the second respondent in each writ appeals were allowed to withdraw a sum of Rs.50,000/- each, by order dated 9.12.2010. Since the writ appeals are dismissed it is needless to mention that the second respondent in each writ appeals are allowed to withdraw the balance amount deposited by the appellant-Bank. Consequently, the connected M.Ps. are also dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.