Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the award dated 21.09.2007 passed by the first respondent Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Chennai (shortly "CGIT") in I.D.No.584 of 2001. By the impugned award, the CGIT held that the demand for regularisation of service of P. Jayapal was not justified and that he was not entitled for any relief. Aggrieved by the same, the workman filed the present writ petition. 2. The writ petition was admitted on 15.04.2008. Pending the writ petition, the petitioner sought for an interim injunction restraining the second respondent from terminating his service pursuant to the award. In that application, only notice was ordered. 3. On notice from this Court, the second respondent Food Corporation of India has filed a counter affidavit dated 11.06.2012. 4. Since the entire records made available before the CGIT was not made available to this Court, this Court directed the Registry to summon the original records from the first respondent CGIT for perusal and accordingly, records were summoned and circulated for perusal. 5. Originally the dispute relating to regularisation of the workman P. Jayapal, who was working as a Scavenger in the Food Corporation of India, Salem, was raised by the Food Corporation of India Employees Union. The said dispute was referred for adjudication by CGIT, Chennai, by the Central Government vide their order dated 28.05.2001. The dispute was taken on file as I.D.No.584/2001. Notice was issued to Union and the Management of Food Corporation of India, the second respondent herein. At that stage, one U.P. Ashok Kumar, who was the earlier District Secretary of the Food Corporation of India Employees Union, filed an application to bring on record the name of the Bharathiya Khadiya Nigam Karmachari Sangh, Coimbatore. He filed an application in I.A.No.149 of 2003 before the CGIT. The CGIT impleaded the Union as necessary party. 6. Challenging the order passed by the CGIT, the second respondent Management filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P.No.10430 of 2004 and attacked the order dated 18.02.2004. He filed an application in I.A.No.149 of 2003 before the CGIT. The CGIT impleaded the Union as necessary party. 6. Challenging the order passed by the CGIT, the second respondent Management filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P.No.10430 of 2004 and attacked the order dated 18.02.2004. This Court held that if there is going to be a dispute between the two Unions in the matter relating to espousing the cause of one workman namely P. Jayapal, it is better that the workman P. Jayapal can be summoned by the CGIT and he can conduct the dispute in I.D.No.584 of 2001 and the same was agreed to by both sides. Accordingly, with the said direction, the writ petition in W.P.No.10430 of 2004 was disposed of vide order dated 19.10.2006. 7. Thereafter, the dispute was prosecuted by the workman with the help of his counsel. Initially, a claim statement was filed by the Food Corporation of India Employees Union dated Nil July 2001. It was contended by the Union that the workman had completed more than 480 days of service within a period of 24 calendar months and therefore, he ought to have been made permanent. It was further stated that the workman belongs to Scheduled Caste community and has been working in the Food Corporation of India for more than seven years and the work done by him was of regular in nature. 8. On notice from the CGIT, the second respondent Management filed a counter statement dated Nil August 2001. The Food Corporation of India Employees Union filed a reply statement dated 08.09.2001. 9. Before the CGIT, the workman examined himself as W.W.1 and marked 10 documents as Exs.W1 to W10. On the side of the Management, one R. Marimuthu was examined as M.W.1 and 19 documents were marked as Exs.M1 to M19. 10. The CGIT found that the workman was engaged as a Casual Labour initially from 1994 till 1995. Subsequently, he was described as Contract Labour. The storage complex at Salem has got a storage capacity of 25,000 MT and has got more than six permanent employees and thus, scavenging and cleaning of the office and godown was absolutely a necessity. Even the Assistant Manager, Salem has recommended to the District Manager, Coimbatore that the service of the petitioner was absolutely necessary and therefore, he has recommended for his regularisation. Even the Assistant Manager, Salem has recommended to the District Manager, Coimbatore that the service of the petitioner was absolutely necessary and therefore, he has recommended for his regularisation. The CGIT held that the respondent Management cannot deny the statutory right of the employee on the ground that the workman was engaged only as a Casual Labour or Contract Labour. The CGIT after referring to various judgments, which arose under the Service Law including the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHER VS. UMA DEVI AND THREE OTHERS [ 2006 (4) SCC 1 ] has held that Casual or temporary employees, who were not recruited as per the recruitment rules, cannot claim the benefit of regularisation. In that view of the matter, the CGIT dismissed the industrial dispute without granting any relief. 11. Mr. Balan Haridas, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the approach of the CGIT is not in consonance with the industrial law and the workers, who were engaged in loading and unloading operations were brought under the direct payment system. But at the same time, the office workers, like the petitioner, who were doing a menial work, which is the essential part of the office functioning, have been left out with lurch. It is admitted by M.W.1 that he was recruited directly as Casual Labour by the Food Corporation of India and thereafter, an attempt was made to make him as Contract Worker and such a change in service condition cannot be brought into effect, without giving any notice under Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. He refers to a judgment of the Supreme Court, which arose in the second respondent Corporation itself, in Workmen vs. Food CORPORATION of India [ 1985 (2) LLJ 4 ]. The Supreme Court almost in identical circumstances held that the workman, who was directly paid, cannot be later converted as contract employee, without issuing notice for altering his service condition and such a conversion would amount to illegality and void ab initio. He further submitted that most the workers had continuously employed and in this case, the dispute was raised by the Trade Union and not by the individuals. It is only because of the fight between the two Trade Unions, the workman was made to defend himself before the CGIT, that too, under the orders of this Court. He further submitted that most the workers had continuously employed and in this case, the dispute was raised by the Trade Union and not by the individuals. It is only because of the fight between the two Trade Unions, the workman was made to defend himself before the CGIT, that too, under the orders of this Court. The CGIT lost sight off the fact that in a collective dispute, a temporary employee service can be demanded to be regularised, if there are circumstances so warrants. The CGIT has got power to direct regularisation, even to a temporary employee, in a given circumstances. In the present case, the workman has been found to be engaged for more than seven years and M.W.1 himself has admitted that he was initially paid directly by the Management of Food Corporation of India. Moreover, it is also admitted that his immediate superior has recommended for regularisation of his service, to the District Office. In these circumstances, denial of employment or regularisation to the petitioner is wholly illegal and unjust. The Supreme Court in paragraphs 21, 23, 24, 30 and 31 of its judgment in Harjinder Singh vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation [ 2010 (3) SCC 192 ], has held as follows: "21.) Before concluding, we consider it necessary to observe that while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution in matters like the present one, the High Courts are duty-bound to keep in mind that the Industrial Disputes Act and other similar legislative instruments are social welfare legislations and the same are required to be interpreted keeping in view the goals set out in the Preamble of the Constitution and the provisions contained in Part IV thereof in general and Articles 38, 39(a) to (e), 43 and 43-A in particular, which mandate that the State should secure a social order for the promotion of welfare of the people, ensure equality between men and women and equitable distribution of material resources of the community to sub-serve the common good and also ensure that the workers get their dues. More than 41 years ago, Gajendragadkar, J. opined that: “10.) ‘The concept of social and economic justice is a living concept of revolutionary import; it gives sustenance to the rule of law and meaning and significance to the ideal of welfare State.” (State of Mysore v. Workers of Gold Mines 13, AIR p. 928, para 10.) 23.) The Preamble and various articles contained in Part IV of the Constitution promote social justice so that life of every individual becomes meaningful and he is able to live with human dignity. The concept of social justice engrafted in the Constitution consists of diverse principles essentially for the orderly growth and development of personality of every citizen. Social justice is thus an integral part of justice in the generic sense. Justice is the genus, of which social justice is one of its species. Social justice is a dynamic devise to mitigate the sufferings of the poor, weak, Dalits, tribals and deprived sections of the society and to elevate them to the level of equality to live a life with dignity of person. In other words, the aim of social justice is to attain substantial degree of social, economic and political equality, which is the legitimate expectation of every section of the society. 24.) In a developing society like ours which is full of unbridgeable and ever widening gaps of inequality in status and of opportunity, law is a catalyst to reach the ladder of justice. The philosophy of welfare State and social justice is amply reflected in large number of judgments of this Court, various High Courts, National and State Industrial Tribunals involving interpretation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, Factories Act, 1948; Payment of Wages Act, 1936; Minimum Wages Act, 1948; Payment of Bonus Act, 1965; Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923; Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948; Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and Shops and Commercial Establishments Act enacted by different States. 30.) Of late, there has been a visible shift in the courts' approach in dealing with the cases involving the interpretation of social welfare legislations. The attractive mantras of globalisation and liberalisation are fast becoming the raison d'jtre of the judicial process and an impression has been created that the constitutional courts are no longer sympathetic towards the plight of industrial and unorganised workers. The attractive mantras of globalisation and liberalisation are fast becoming the raison d'jtre of the judicial process and an impression has been created that the constitutional courts are no longer sympathetic towards the plight of industrial and unorganised workers. In large number of cases like the present one, relief has been denied to the employees falling in the category of workmen, who are illegally retrenched from service by creating by-lanes and side-lanes in the jurisprudence developed by this Court in three decades. The stock plea raised by the public employer in such cases is that the initial employment / engagement of the workman / employee was contrary to some or the other statute or that reinstatement of the workman will put unbearable burden on the financial health of the establishment. The courts have readily accepted such plea unmindful of the accountability of the wrong doer and indirectly punished the tiny beneficiary of the wrong ignoring the fact that he may have continued in the employment for years together and that micro wages earned by him may be the only source of his livelihood. 31.) It need no emphasis that if a man is deprived of his livelihood, he is deprived of all his fundamental and constitutional rights and for him the goal of social and economic justice, equality of status and of opportunity, the freedoms enshrined in the Constitution remain illusory. Therefore, the approach of the courts must be compatible with the constitutional philosophy of which the directive principles of State policy constitute an integral part and justice due to the workman should not be denied by entertaining the specious and untenable grounds put forward by the employer 'public or private.’ 12. Under the said circumstances, this Court is inclined to order in favour of the petitioner. Hence, the impugned award dated 21.09.2007 of the first respondent CGIT passed in I.D.No.584 of 2001 stands set aside and the writ petition is allowed and the second respondent Food Corporation of India is hereby directed to regularise the service of the petitioner in the post of Scavenger, with time scale of pay, from the date of the reference made to the CGIT dated 28.05.2001, with all consequential monetary benefits. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.