JUDGMENT Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. By means of this petition the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned award dated 30-8-1997 passed in Adjudication Case No. 91 of 1991 and published on the notice board on 12-12-1997. 2. The facts of the case in short, are that petitioner No.1 Devi Dutt Pandey was appointed on 13-7-1970 in work-charge in U.P.S.E.B. in the scale of Rs. 110-250 and thereafter under the Board order he was given a regular appointment in the Board as Store Munshi in the same pay scale. Petitioner No.2 Girish Chandra Saxena was appointed on 30-12-1968 in work charge in the UPSEB in the pay scale of Rs. 80-100 and thereafter he was given regular appointment by the Board as Routine Grade Clerk in the pay scale of Rs. 110-250. The Service rendered by petitioners in work charge department was not counted in the seniority list and in fixation of pay in time scale. The petitioners raised industrial dispute and the same was referred to Labour Court for adjudication and the same was registered as Adjudication Case No. 91 of 1991. 3. Before the Labour Court written statement was filed by the petitioners as well as the Electricity Board. The petitioner Devi Dutt Pandey appeared as a witness in the proceeding before Labour Court and on behalf of respondents Sri N.C. Pant, Executive Engineer appeared as a witness. The Labour Court gave its award on 30-8-1997 holding that the seniority list published, without counting the service rendered by the petitioners in the work charge, is not improper. Further, by not fixing the pay of the petitioners in accordance to Order No. 489 dated 25-2-1989 of the Board, is also not illegal and improper and the workmen are not entitled to get any benefit or compensation in the Adjudication Case. 4. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners, workmen have preferred this writ petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the period spent as a work charge employee should have been included in the length of service at the time of regularization and their pay should have also been fixed in accordance to the Board’s Order No. 489 dated 25-2-89, but the Labour Court has committed a manifest error of law in passing the award whereby the claim of the petitioners was refused. 6. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that the facts of the present case are squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Electricity Distribution Division, Kashipur Vs. State and others, reported in 2010 (2) U.D., 41. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that service rules in U.P.S.E.B. did not provide for counting of work charge period in the regularized service, therefore the period spent on work-charged would not be counted in the length of service. He has relied on the judgment of Punjab State Electricity Board and others Vs. Jagjiwan Ram and others, reported in 2009 (1) SCC (L & S) 769. He further submitted that the ratio of Electricity Distribution Division, Kashipur Vs. State and others, reported in 2010 (2) U.D., 41 cited on behalf of petitioners is not applicable to the facts of present case, since the petitioners have claimed the work charge period for the purpose of fixation of pay. 8. In the case of Electricity Distribution Division, Kashipur Vs. State and others (supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners were also employees of Electricity Board on work charge and subsequently they were regularized. The workmen had raised a dispute that the period, which the workers had spent as workcharge employees, should also be included in the length of service and that the length of services should not start from the date of their regularization. The Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the Boad has not framed any rules with regard to non-inclusion of the period of workcharge in their length of service from the date of regularization and has held that the period spent by the workers as workcharge employees should be included in the length of service and for other benefits that may follow. Against the award passed by Labour Court writ petition No. 3010 of 2001 (M/S) Electricity Distribution Division Kashipur vs. State and others, (2010 (2)(U.D.,41) was preferred and the learned Single Judge of this Court has considered the ratio of the case Punjab State Electricity Board and others Vs. Against the award passed by Labour Court writ petition No. 3010 of 2001 (M/S) Electricity Distribution Division Kashipur vs. State and others, (2010 (2)(U.D.,41) was preferred and the learned Single Judge of this Court has considered the ratio of the case Punjab State Electricity Board and others Vs. Jagjiwan Ram and others, reported in 2009 (1) SCC (L & S) 769, cited on behalf respondents in the present case also, and has distinguished the said case observing that the aforementioned case clear states that if the statute or scheme under which service of work-charged employee is regularized does not provide for counting of past service, the past service spent by the workmen as a work-charged employee would not be counted in the length of service. However in the case before the learned Single Judge the Labour court has categorically given a finding that no rules or regulation have been framed to indicate that period spent on work-charged would not be counted in the length of service and the award was affirmed. 9. In the case at hand this fact is not disputed that the petitioners earlier were on work-charge and lateron their services were regularized. The learned Labour Court has recorded a finding that Board’s Order dated 12-10-1971 contains provisions to regularize the workcharged employees and a workcharge employee who has completed three years service he would be regularized. However, nowhere has been indicated whether the period spent as workcharge would be counted in regular service. It has further been observed that since the workcharge employee was being paid a lumpsum amount as wages and no annual increment was being given to him, hence the workcharge period would not be counted in regular service for the purpose of seniority as well as for fixation of pay. 10. The above finding of learned Labour Court is a perverse finding. A workcharge employee is always paid lumpsum salary and no annual increment is given to him. Admittedly in Board’s Order dated 12-10-1971, it was not specified whether the service rendered by the employees as workcharge would be counted or not and the Board is silent on this issue. Further, this fact is also not disputed that the Board had regularized the services of the petitioners, hence by non-mentioning this fact in the Board’s Order dated 12-10-1971 whether the workcharge period would be counted in the regular service or not, hardly matters. Further, this fact is also not disputed that the Board had regularized the services of the petitioners, hence by non-mentioning this fact in the Board’s Order dated 12-10-1971 whether the workcharge period would be counted in the regular service or not, hardly matters. In the case of Electricity Distribution Division Kashipur (supra), the Labour Court had also observed that the Electricity Board has not framed any rules or regulation with regard to non-inclusion of the period of workcharge in their length of service from the date of regularization, therefore, the period spent by employees on work charge should be included. The same situation is in the case at hand. The Board has not framed any rules or regulations with regard to non-inclusion of the period of workcharge in the length of service from the date of regularization, therefore, the ratio of above cited case of Electricity Distribution Division Kashipur is fully applicable to the facts of present case. The Labour Court besides holding that the period spent by the workers as workcharge employee should be included in the length of service has also held that the workcharge service should also be counted for other benefits that may follow and the same was upheld by learned Single Judge. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the respondents that the benefit of workcharge period should not be given for fixation of pay has no substance. 11. For the discussion made above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned award dated 30-8-1997 passed by Labour Court in Adjudication Case No. 91 of 1991 is set aside. The respondent/department is directed to include the period of the petitioners spent by them in workcharge in the regular service and award them the consequential benefit of pay, allowance etc. in accordance with law.