JUDGMENT : Rajiv Narain Raina, J. The petitioner was engaged as an unskilled labour in Public Health Sub Division No. 5 in the Public Health Department, Haryana w.e.f. 1.4.1989. He worked up to February 1991. He filed C.W.P. No. 15601 of 1990 claiming regularization of his services in terms of the Division Bench decision of this Court in Piara Singh's case, 1988 (4) SLR 739 from the date of his initial appointment and to grant him equal pay for equal work in parity with regular employees of the respondent department. The writ petition was disposed of on 5.12.1990 by passing the following order: The petitioner is seeking regularization of his service in view of Piara Singh's case (supra) without any representation. He may make a representation to the authority who will pass speaking order on the same within six months thereof. Status quo regarding service to continue as it exists today subject to his filing the representation within a fortnight. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. 2. The petitioner avers that he made representation but his services were terminated by an oral order w.e.f. 1.3.1991. The representation made by the petitioner was disposed of and rejected on 10.4.1991, the date when the cause of action would be taken as accrued. Retrenchment from service for violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act") was made subject matter of Industrial Reference No. 30 of 2005 on raising of demand for reinstatement etc. which was tried by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Panipat. It is recorded in the opening line of the award dated 6.2.2006 that the workman/petitioner served a demand notice on the management through the Executive Engineer, PWD, Public Health Division No. 2, Sonepat on 16.6.2000. The operative part of the award reads as follows: Relief. 11. In view of my findings on the various issues above, the reference is answered in favour of the workman to the effect that the workman is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages from the date of demand notice i.e. 16.6.2000. 3. The State of Haryana questioned unsuccessfully the correctness of the award before this Court in C.W.P. No. 507 of 2007. The writ petition was dismissed on 15.1.2007. The finding of non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Act was upheld and the award was found justified. 3. The State of Haryana questioned unsuccessfully the correctness of the award before this Court in C.W.P. No. 507 of 2007. The writ petition was dismissed on 15.1.2007. The finding of non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Act was upheld and the award was found justified. The further appeal to the Supreme Court failed on 12.7.2007. The award attained finality. The award has been satisfied and stands implemented. The petitioner was reinstated to service and paid arrears of back wages as awarded and is presently working in Public Health Sub Division at Sonepat and drawing salary at DC rates as are admissible to daily wagers fixed from time-to-time. 4. After reinstatement in 2007 the petitioner, for the first time, made a representation to the respondent-Department that his services be regularized and he be given all benefits flowing therefrom by treating him as a regular employee w.e.f. 1.4.1993 in the light of then existing policy of regularization. His case was recommended by the Executive Engineer to the Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Circle, Sonepat vide memo dated 29.9.2011 that he be regularized w.e.f. 1.4.1993 by operation of award of Labour Court. The Superintending Engineer also recommended the case of the petitioner to the Engineer-in-Chief, Public Health Engineering Department, Panchkula vide his memo dated 30.9.2011 in terms of orders of the Court. The case of the petitioner before the Department was that his junior had been regularized and one such was Naresh Kumar who was engaged as daily wager on 5.5.1995 and was regularized by order dated 29.3.2010 w.e.f. 1.10.2003. Another junior was Kumesh Kumar who filed C.W.P. No. 1275 of 2011 claiming regularization which was decided in favour of Kumesh Kumar. Naresh Kumar also litigated through C.W.P. No. 3557 of 2005 against which SLP was dismissed on 9.1.2008. Kumesh Kumar filed C.O.C.P. No. 959 of 2013 and his services have been regularized w.e.f. 19.8.2013. Since the case of Naresh Kumar was made reason for recommendation made in favour of the petitioner, the Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary to Government Haryana, Public Health Engineering Department sought information as to the circumstances under which the services of Naresh Kumar were regularized though the facts of both the cases appeared similar. The cases of both the petitioner and Naresh Kumar were put to comparison. The cases of both the petitioner and Naresh Kumar were put to comparison. The Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary to Government Haryana observed that the facts of both cases were similar as per tabulation placed before him. The services of Naresh Kumar were regularized w.e.f. 1.10.2003. It was also observed that the petitioner's case is not covered by a regularization policy of 2003. 5. In absence of final decision, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court through C.W.P. No. 21320 of 2012. This Court on 19.10.2012 passed the following order: It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed in the month of April, 1989 and is continuing as an unskilled labourer with the respondents. Person junior to the petitioner, who was appointed subsequent to the appointment of the petitioner, namely, Naresh Kumar, has been regularized w.e.f. 1.10.2003 but the claim of the petitioner has not been granted which he had projected through his representation dated 28.10.2010 (Annexured P-5). He further contends that the claim of the petitioner is covered by the judgment passed by this Court in C.W.P. No. 1275 of 2011 titled as Kumesh v. State of Haryana and Others, decided on 10.9.2012 (Annexure P-14). Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner, at this stage, would be satisfied if a direction is issued too Respondent No. 3- Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Division No. 2, Gohana Road, Sonipat to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner as made by him through representation dated 28.10.2010 (Annexure P-5) within some specified time. Without going into merits of the case or commenting thereon, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to Respondent No. 3- Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Division No. 2, Gohana Road, Sonipat to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner as made by him through representation dated 28.10.2010 (Annexure P-5) within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Decision so taken be conveyed to the petitioner forthwith. 6. The petitioner has placed on record the orders passed by this Court in the case of Naresh Kumar (C.W.P. No. 11176 of 2009) dated 28.7.2009 and Kumesh (C.W.P. No. 1275 of 2011) decided on 10.9.2012 giving benefit of para 44 of the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. 6. The petitioner has placed on record the orders passed by this Court in the case of Naresh Kumar (C.W.P. No. 11176 of 2009) dated 28.7.2009 and Kumesh (C.W.P. No. 1275 of 2011) decided on 10.9.2012 giving benefit of para 44 of the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others, which carves out an exception to the normal rule that on completion of ten years of service the plea of regularization could be sustained. The learned Single Judge in allowing Kumesh Kumar's writ petition found as follows: The contention of the counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has been reinstated in service with continuity thereof w.e.f. 30.09.2002 only and not from the initial date of appointment, cannot be accepted. The Award clearly states that the workman is entitled to reinstatement and continuity of service. While dealing with back wages, it has been stated that he would be entitled to 50% back wages with effect from the date of demand notice i.e. 30.09.2002. 7. The case of the petitioner for regularization has been rejected by the impugned order dated 22.3.2013 in which it has been observed as follows: Where, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para No. 44 of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Uma Devi and Others (supra) held that the State Government should take steps to regularize as one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked more man 10 year or more in duly sanctioned post but not under cover of orders of Court or tribunals. In the instant case, the services of the petitioner Sh. Ashok Kumar were terminated on February 1991 but he was reinstated in compliance with labour Court Award dated 6.2.2006. As such Sh. Ashok Kumar, did not fulfill the condition laid down in para No. 44 by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and Others v. Uma Devi and Others (supra). Whereas, in pursuance to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and Others v. Uma Devi and Others (supra). The Govt. of Haryana has withdrawn the policies of regularization of services of ad hoc/contractual/daily wager and part time workers issued in the year of 1997, 1999, 2003 and 2004 vide Govt. notification No. G.S.R. const. Article 203/207 dated 13.4.2007. The Govt. of Haryana has withdrawn the policies of regularization of services of ad hoc/contractual/daily wager and part time workers issued in the year of 1997, 1999, 2003 and 2004 vide Govt. notification No. G.S.R. const. Article 203/207 dated 13.4.2007. However, in the year of 2011 Government of Haryana has issued policy of regularization services of ad hoc/contractual/daily wager and part time workers vide Govt. notification No. G.S.R. 9 const. Article 209/2011 dated 29.7.2011. The relevant conditions No. (i) and (iii) of the same are reproduced as under: (i) That the employee/worker should have continued to work for not less than ten years as on 10-04-2006 and is still in service but not under cover of the orders of the Courts or Tribunals, against duly sanctioned vacant posts. The period of continuous break in such service should not be more than one month in a calendar year. (ii) That the concerned employee should have been appointed only after either his name has been sponsored by the Employment Exchange or has been appointed/engaged on the basis or recommendations made by the Departmental Selection Committee by inviting applications through advertisement against duly sanctioned vacant post. Whereas, Sh. Ashok Kumar did not fulfill the condition No. (i) of regularization of policy 2011, because as stated earlier, he was reinstated by virtue of Labour Court Award dated 6.2.2006. Further, he also did not fulfill the condition No. (iii) because neither his name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange nor he has been engaged on the basis of recommendation made by the department Selection Committee. As such, he is not entitled for regularization of services under the regularization policy 2011. Whereas, in view if the facts as stated above, Sh. Ashok Kumar is not eligible for regularization of his services light of para 44 of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Uma Devi and Others (supra) as well as under the regularization policy of 2011. As such, claim of the petitioner for regularization of services is hereby rejected. 8. I find that much of the reasoning may not be legally correct in the light of the orders passed by this Court in Naresh Kumar and Kumesh Kumar's case. As such, claim of the petitioner for regularization of services is hereby rejected. 8. I find that much of the reasoning may not be legally correct in the light of the orders passed by this Court in Naresh Kumar and Kumesh Kumar's case. If there is Labour Court award granting reinstatement and continuity of service from retrospective date then the workman on reinstatement would be deemed to be in service throughout the period by operation of legal fiction. 9. The fate of this case hinges upon what the Labour Court infact gave to the petitioner which could be seen as executable, the operative of which has been reproduced above. In the present case, the Labour Court did not grant relief of reinstatement with continuity of service with effect from the original date of retrenchment/termination in February 1991. All the three claims were consolidated i.e. reinstatement, continuity of service and full back wages executable from the date of demand notice i.e. 16.6.2000. The award does not break reinstatement with continuity of service from the relief of back wages. In Kumesh Kumar's case, the award was differently worded. Reinstatement and continuity of service were dealt with separately and relief granted from retrospective date i.e. 1.4.1997 when Kumesh Kumar services were terminated by an oral order without complying with the provisions of the Act. The Labour Court while dealing with back wages had held Kumesh entitled to 50% back wages from the date of demand notice i.e. 30.9.2002 meaning thereby that right to reinstatement was retroactive from the date of original retrenchment. 10. In the present case, reinstatement and continuity of service was not awarded from February 1991. Therefore, the legal fiction ceases to operate. The words of the award cannot be changed by interpretation since it has merged with the order of the Supreme Court. The consequences may appear to be hard but it is so. I cannot lose sight of the fact that for a termination effected in 1991 the dispute was raised and demand notice served only on 16.6.2000 after almost nine years. The reference was made in 2005. There are no facts available on record of this case as to what transpired between 16.6.2000 and the making of the reference in 2005 or whose fault was it for the inordinate delay in making reference u/s 10(1)(c). The reference was made in 2005. There are no facts available on record of this case as to what transpired between 16.6.2000 and the making of the reference in 2005 or whose fault was it for the inordinate delay in making reference u/s 10(1)(c). The Labour Court notices that the demand notice was filed too late but correctly said that the provisions of the Limitation Act are not strictly applicable to proceedings before the Labour Court and that is why the arrears of wages were restricted from the date of demand notice. 11. The Labour Court has factored all possibilities in the exercise of its discretion and has affirmatively held that under such circumstances, reinstatement and back wages to the extent from the date of demand notice is a reasonable relief of be provided to the workman hence it decide this issue in favour of the workman to the extent decreed or awarded. 12. The Labour Court has denied continuity of service from any date prior to 16.6.2000. As it was clearly and consciously denied, the petitioner did not impugn the award dated 6.2.2006 and his rights would remain confined therein and thereat. The cases of Naresh Kumar and Kumesh are distinguishable in the text and context of the actual relief given by the Labour Court in their cases and what naturally flows therefrom. Had the Labour Court given continuity of service from the date of original termination in the present case the judgments relied upon by the petitioner would have come to his aid. The law is hard but it is the law. Though I have little doubt that the reasoning found in the impugned order is not correct but it is sustainable in its denial of relief though for different reasons. The Administrator may have stayed away from interpreting the award which had attained finality possible afraid of committing contempt if the reasoning given in an administrative order is found faulty. Normally an administrative order should fall and be declared bad when the reasoning is found incorrect but the nature of the issue is such which could be resolved only by the interpretative process of the Court. The impugned order dated 22.3.2013 is therefore set aside but at the same time the claim for regularization with effect from the original termination is rejected by virtue of the award of the Labour Court, Panipat. The impugned order dated 22.3.2013 is therefore set aside but at the same time the claim for regularization with effect from the original termination is rejected by virtue of the award of the Labour Court, Panipat. But at the same time, I find it hard to digest that this man should serve for the rest of his service life as a daily wager and therefore, to serve the ends of justice and to avoid its miscarriage, the respondent-department is directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner for regularization keeping in view that reinstatement to service was awarded w.e.f. 16.6.2000 to be given credit for the present and for the future as well in case there is a policy under which he could fall or be adjusted in accordance with law. The writ petition stands disposed of as above.