ORDER : Arvind Kumar Tripathi, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record. Being aggrieved against the award dated 13.2.2012 passed by the respondent No. 1 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition), the present writ petition has been preferred with further prayer to issue mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 and 3 to reinstate the petitioner with back wages and consequential benefits on the post of supervisor along with the seniority. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the land was acquired by the State Government which was handed over for establishing Petro Chemical Fertilizers by the Gas Authority of India Limited (Gail). The land of the formers including the land of the petitioner was acquired which was situated in District Auraiya. Since the matter was settled in an agreement, hence no dispute was raised against the acquisition though only meager amount of compensation was paid because the offer was given in the agreement to provide job to one member of the family whose lands were acquired. The Government Order was issued by the State of U.P. for rehabilitation of those family members whose lands have been acquired or to be acquired. A tripartite agreement was executed on 29.6.1998 signed by Management of the Gail Authority and the family of those persons whose lands were acquired. The petitioners have passed intermediate examination. For the purpose of providing employment an examination was conducted by the respondent GAIL under the supervision and control of the respondent No. 2. The petitioners were declared successful and they were directed to be present on 15.9.2000 at Pata Gate (Main) for supervision of horticulture activities. 3. The petitioners were selected and they were engaged for supervision work of the horticulture activities and they were discharging their duties without any complaint. However, when there was no payment of regular salary/wages and other emoluments and benefits, then there was some demand and agitation. Thereafter they were removed from the services w.e.f. 10.10.2001. However, no written order was given. By oral order they were not permitted to continue to work. When the Petition No. 5024 of 2002 was filed which was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy to raise issue before Labour Court under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. Thereafter the matter was referred to the Labour Court and registered as Adjudication Case No. 43 of 2005. By oral order they were not permitted to continue to work. When the Petition No. 5024 of 2002 was filed which was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy to raise issue before Labour Court under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. Thereafter the matter was referred to the Labour Court and registered as Adjudication Case No. 43 of 2005. However, Labour Court accepting the version of Management of the GAIL recorded the finding that the petitioners were not appointed directly by the respondent GAIL but they were engaged through contractor for maintenance of horticulture work, and plant township those works were of permanent in nature. They were getting salary and wages directly from the GAIL and as they were appointed as per assurance and agreement, hence the acts of the respondent GAIL authority are arbitrary and against the principle of natural justice. The Labour Court failed to consider this aspect that the appointment was given to the petitioners in view of the agreement entered into between the parties. Neither the claim was considered for reinstatement with back wages nor even the direction was issued for payment of the damages and retrenchment compensation hence, the impugned award is illegal, arbitrary and against the government policy and as such the same is liable to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed and submitted that in view of the Government Policy for rehabilitation purposes assistance was to be provided to those persons whose lands were acquired and neither in the agreement nor in the notification issued by the Central Government, Ministry of Industries, Department of the Public Enterprises Bureau on 3.2.1986 there was such provision to directly provide the employment in public sector. 5. The petitioners were never appointed directly. They were appointed through society and the society was not willing to continue the work. Since the petitioners were engaged by the co-operative society through whom they were working for supervision of horticulture works and as such rightly there was no relation of employer and workmen and rightly the claim of the petitioner was refused by the impugned award and as such the present petition is not maintainable. 6. Considered the submissions of the parties. 7. 6. Considered the submissions of the parties. 7. From a perusal of the Government Order issued by the Ministry of Industries, Department of Public Enterprises on 3.2.1986 it appears that when there are acquisitions of the land apart from the procedure to determine the payment of compensation in the light of provision of Land Acquisition Act, other steps are to be taken to provide assistance for rehabilitation purposes to those whose lands were acquired. The priority was to be given for rehabilitation assistance to arrange for imparting suitable education and training to equip them to be considered for employment in the project, subject to availability of the vacancies. Such education and training should be imparted through existing availability of the training institutions of the State and Central Government and the project authority may meet cost of the training, if the persons are selected from amongst the evicted family members. They were required to maintain suitable discipline and to work. Apart from that to educate training facilities are to be provided to support work like poultry form and animal husbandry etc. Even in the agreement entered into in between the parties there was no agreement that directly service has to be provided rather the agreement was to provide directly and indirectly, service to them. The petitioners were engaged through cooperative society for supervision of horticulture work and they were not directly employee of the respondent, the GAIL rather they were working through cooperative society as per agreement. As per the case of the petitioner the respondent GAIL is also registered under the provision of Contract Labour (Regulation and Payment) Act, 1970 and as per Rule workers might be engaged through the Contractor, hence such labours cannot be treated employee of the GAIL. 8. From a perusal of the finding recorded by the Labour Court there is no material to show that the petitioners were directly appointed by the respondent GAIL rather they were working through cooperative society providing labour for supervision of horticulture works. Hence no interference is required in the impugned award. 9. However, the land belonging to the petitioners were acquired which was source of the livelihood. There was agreement to provide job to one member of the family hence those persons whose lands were acquired did not raise objection against the acquisition proceeding and payment of compensation. They have also passed the examination held by GAIL for selection. 9. However, the land belonging to the petitioners were acquired which was source of the livelihood. There was agreement to provide job to one member of the family hence those persons whose lands were acquired did not raise objection against the acquisition proceeding and payment of compensation. They have also passed the examination held by GAIL for selection. Thereafter they were engaged. Hence there was no option but after they were declared successful in the examination conducted by the respondent GAIL, they had accepted work which was provided through cooperative society and as such subject to the availability of the work and vacancy, their claim has to be considered by the authorities for absorption against the suitable work in view of the Tripartite agreement entered into in between the parties on 29.6.1998. With the above observation, this petition is hereby finally disposed off.