JUDGMENT : - 1) These two writ petitions are directed against the common award dated 14/9/2011 passed by Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer, filed by both, the employees association and management of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short, the “LIC”) to the extent it is against them. The employees association (shall hereinafter be referred as the “employees association”) has assailed the award with the prayer the workman-Anil Mahendru be held entitled to regularization on the post of Comptomist w.e.f. 7/1/1987 and also for payment of wages in terms of the circular dated 25/2/1987 for the period from 6/6/1984 till the date of regularization. The management of the LIC has approached this court with the prayer that the award of the labour court dated 14/9/2011 be set-aside in toto. The labour court has answered the reference of the industrial dispute whether action of the management of LIC in denying regularization of the workman Anil Mahendru is just and legal and if not, what relief he is entitled to; holding that such workman is entitled to regularization in services and payment of regular pay scale w.e.f. 1/2/2007, the date on which the reference was made. 2) Before proceeding to notice the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it would be appropriate to notice the background facts giving rise to these writ petitions. 3) Workman-Anil Mahendru was engaged as a Comtometer Operator / Comptomist, an encadred Class-III post under LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 on temporary basis on 6/6/1984 in the divisional office of LIC at Ajmer. An industrial dispute had arisen at the national level with regard to wages and other conditions of service of Badli, temporary and part time workman of LIC of India as well as conditions of their absorption into regular cadre. Aforesaid industrial dispute was referred by the Government of India to a specially constituted National Industrial Tribunal (shall hereinafter be called as the “Tribunal”) chaired by Justice R.D. Tulpule vide Reference dated 20/5/1985. The said Tribunal gave its award on 17/4/1986, which was published in the Gazette of India on 7/6/1986. Pursuant to the said award dated 17/4/1986, LIC issued a circular on 18/9/1986 in which certain guidelines/ criteria of absorption/regular employment for absorption/regular employment of temporary, part time and Badi workmen of the LIC were laid down. The said Tribunal gave its award on 17/4/1986, which was published in the Gazette of India on 7/6/1986. Pursuant to the said award dated 17/4/1986, LIC issued a circular on 18/9/1986 in which certain guidelines/ criteria of absorption/regular employment for absorption/regular employment of temporary, part time and Badi workmen of the LIC were laid down. According to the workman-Anil Mahendru, he having worked for 85 days in two consecutive years from 1/1/1982 to 20/5/1985 and satisfied the condition of the aforesaid circular and possessed other eligibility qualification, his case therefore should have been considered for absorption/regular appointment. LIC however rejected his case vide order dated 9/8/1986 on the premise that he was working on contract basis. The employees association submitted a composite representation for number of workmen including above workman-Anil Mahendru to the LIC on 16/10/1986 objecting to rejection of the case of workman-Anil Mahendru for absorption/regular employment. Senior Divisional Manager Divisional Office, LIC of India, Ajmer communicated the petitioner vide letter dated 29/10/1986 that his case cannot be considered for absorption/regular employment as he worked only on contract basis. Association submitted another representation on 5/11/1986 raising the similar issue. The LIC then issued another circular on 25/2/1987 stipulating other things that every part time/temporary and Badli workmen should be given wages as are drawn by the regular employees at the minimum of the pay scale applicable to the respective categories. It further provided that these benefits are to be given to the temporary/badli and regular part time workmen w.e.f. 1/1/1982 or from the date of appointment, whichever is later. 4) There arose certain disputes between the manager and the different employees association as regards the interpretation/implementation of Justice Tulpule Award of the National Industrial Tribunal. The Central Government referred the matter to Justice Jamdar for interpretation of the said award under Section 36-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the “Act of 1947”), who gave his final award on 26/8/1988, which was published in the Official Gazette on 1/10/1988. LIC of India filed special leave to petition before the Supreme Court against both the awards. A compromise was arrived at between the Management and employees association. The Supreme Court vide its order dated 1/3/1989 directed the LIC to implement the terms of the compromise arrived at during the pendency of the said petition before it. LIC of India filed special leave to petition before the Supreme Court against both the awards. A compromise was arrived at between the Management and employees association. The Supreme Court vide its order dated 1/3/1989 directed the LIC to implement the terms of the compromise arrived at during the pendency of the said petition before it. LIC issued circular dated 14/3/1989 therein incorporating the Compotomist as one of the post encaderd in which regular employment can be claimed by temporary/part time and Badli workmen in terms of the above referred to two awards. The employees association demanded absorption/regular employment of workman-Anil Mahendru on 24/3/1989 by submitting another representation on the premise that he had been working worked with the LIC since 6/6/1984. The Divisional Office at Ajmer recommended his case to the Northern Zonal Office at New Delhi on 6/4/1989 (Ann.11 annexed with SBCWP No.3830/12) on the premise that he having worked continuously and uninterruptedly for such a long period of time, his case should be considered and that his case “appears to have been wrongly rejected earlier” and that his case stand altogether on different footing than that of self contractors engaged by recourse to the guidelines. In view of his continued services from 6/6/1984 to date, his case be considered for regular employment. When the management did not accept the aforesaid demand of the employees association, the appropriate government vide order dated 15/12/1989 referred the industrial dispute to the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal on the premise whether action of the management in denying full wages in the regular pay scale to the workman-Anil Mahendru, Comptomist of their Divisional Office Ajmer is just and legal and if not, to what relief the workman is entitled to? 5) Since the terms of the reference did not include the issue of absorption / regular employment/regularization of workman-Anil Mahendru, the employees association immediately wrote to the Ministry of Labour for amendment of the reference on 21/12/1989. The Ministry of Labour, Government of India also addressed a letter to the LIC on 23/2/1990 in this behalf. Eventually, the Central Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur on 16/7/1991 passed the 'no dispute award' as the employee association or the workman did not contest the claim before it. Workman-Anil Mahendru filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5291/1990 seeking absorption / regular employment / regularization on the post of Comptomist of the LIC. Eventually, the Central Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur on 16/7/1991 passed the 'no dispute award' as the employee association or the workman did not contest the claim before it. Workman-Anil Mahendru filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5291/1990 seeking absorption / regular employment / regularization on the post of Comptomist of the LIC. During pendency of the writ petition, Senior Divisional Officer wrote a letter to the zonal office at New Delhi on 20/6/1994 for favourable consideration of his case on the ground of his having worked for more than a decade. The single bench of this Court dismissed the writ petition filed its order dated 22/10/1999 on the ground of alternative remedy of raising industrial dispute. Workman-Anil Mahendru then filed special appeal there against being D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.77/2000 before the Division Bench, which vide order dated 14/5/2002 dismissed the appeal maintaining the order of the Single Bench. In that background, the employees association again raised the industrial dispute on 27/1/2005 for regularization of the services of workman-Anil Mahendru. Government of India vide order dated 1/2/2007 referred the matter of industrial dispute in the terms noted at the outset. It is on that basis that the award of the Labour Court dated 14/9/2011 being assailed by the workman-Anil Mahendra as well as the Management of the LIC. 6) Shri Sunil Samdaria, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner has been continuously and uninterruptedly working with the LIC on temporary basis w.e.f. 6/6/1984 against the post of Comptomist. He was engaged on that post of Comptomist / Comptometer Operator on temporary basis, which fact is borne out from various intra departmental correspondences and communications. Reference is made to the letters dated 17/4/1986 (Ann.1) and 19/4/1986 (Ann.2). It was argued that pursuant to the award of the National Industrial Tribunal chaired by Justice R.D. Tulpule dated 17/4/1986, LIC issued a fresh Circular on 18/9/1986 spelling out guidelines and criteria for absorption /regular employment. Such benefits were allowed to be extended to the temporary, part time and badli workmen of LIC for their absorption/regular employment in the Corporation on satisfying certain condition by them. Despite the fact that petitioner satisfied such condition, respondents have mechanically rejected his claim on the premise that he was engaged on contract basis. Such benefits were allowed to be extended to the temporary, part time and badli workmen of LIC for their absorption/regular employment in the Corporation on satisfying certain condition by them. Despite the fact that petitioner satisfied such condition, respondents have mechanically rejected his claim on the premise that he was engaged on contract basis. The labour court though has answered the reference entitling the petitioner-workman to be regularized in the services of LIC declaring his order of termination illegal but only from 1/2/2007 and not from the date mentioned in the letter of the Corporation dated 25/2/1987 (Ann.8 in SBCWP No.3830/2012), which was 1/1/1982 or from the date of appointment, whichever is later. It is argued that admittedly, the petitioner is continuously serving the LIC since 6/6/1984 and thus he has completed as many as 30 years in their services, therefore there is no justification for granting regularization to the petitioner only from 1/2/2007 taking the date of reference as the basis. Even before reference was made, petitioner has been discharging continuously with the LIC from the date of his initial appointment. 7) Shri Sunil Samdaria, learned counsel argued that earlier also, an industrial dispute was referred by the appropriate government on 15/12/1989 but since the reference was defective in the sense that it only dealt with the issue of denial of wages and regular absorption and did not directly raise the question of regularization, the employees association immediately submitted an application to the appropriate government on 21/12/1989 for amendment of the reference issued on 15/12/1989 for inclusion of the issue of absorption/regular employment / regularization of the said workman. Learned counsel at this juncture made reference to letter dated 23/2/1990 (Ann.14) sent by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India to the Senior Divisional Manager of LIC, Ajmer calling upon them to send the comments on the demand for amendment / modification in terms of reference aforesaid. Even when the employee association / workman did not prosecute the reference proceedings for modification/amendment, labour court vide order dated 16/7/1991 passed 'no dispute award', wheres fact is that employee association / workman has been continuously agitating the issue. Even when the employee association / workman did not prosecute the reference proceedings for modification/amendment, labour court vide order dated 16/7/1991 passed 'no dispute award', wheres fact is that employee association / workman has been continuously agitating the issue. Immediately, the petitioner-workman filed writ petition before this Court being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5291/1990 seeking absorption / regular employment / regularization on the post of Comptomist of the LIC but that petition was dismissed vide order dated 22/10/1999 on the ground of alternative remedy. He even filed special appeal challenging the said order dated 22/10/1999, which too was dismissed vide judgment dated 14/5/2002 on the ground of alternative remedy. It is therefore that the employees association/workman had to again raise the dispute, which is the basis of the impugned award. Learned counsel therefore argued that confining the benefit of regularization from 1/2/2007 on which date, petitioner had already completed 21 years of service with the LIC, would be highly unjust and unreasonable. Learned counsel cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in Virendra Bhandari Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. : JT 2002 (5) SC 21 and argued that the Supreme Court in that case held that second reference on the same issue when the earlier reference was returned with no dispute award for non appearance of the workman despite notice, would not be barred and incompetent as there was no adjudication on the dispute by the Tribunal when it passed the earlier award. It is therefore prayed that the writ petition be allowed. 8) Shri Rajendra Arora, learned counsel appearing for Life Insurance Corporation of India has opposed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3830/2012 and argued that the Judge, Labour Court has erred in law in entertaining the reference on the industrial dispute as it was barred by the principles of res judicata on account of previous no dispute award dated 16/7/1991 passed by the Central Industrial Tribunal. It was argued that the workman-Anil Mahendru was engaged as Comptomist on 6/6/1984 at Divisional Office of the LIC at Ajmer on contractual basis for six hours per day from Monday to Friday and three hours per day on Saturday on a payment of Rs.6/- per hour i.e. Rs.36/- per day for working for six hours and Rs.18/- per day for working for three hours. Workman was neither in the regular category nor any regular scale of pay was paid to him nor his engagement was conferred by the rules by following the prescribed procedure. After computerization, there was no requirement of Comptomist. Workman-Anil Mahendru raised the industrial dispute, which was pending with the Central Industrial Tribunal on 15/12/1989. Despite fresh notice and opportunity provided by the Central Industrial Tribunal, he failed to contest that matter and therefore no dispute award was passed on 16/7/1991. It is argued that single bench of this court while disposing of the writ petition filed by workman-Anil Mahendru on 22/10/1999 held that neither the employees association nor the workman pursuaded that alternative remedy, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Learned counsel argued that single bench only held that if any question arises for interpretation of National Industrial Tribunal, it can be raised only with reference to Section 36-A of the Act of 1947. Anil Mahendru being aggrieved therewith, filed appeal before the division bench, which too was dismissed. Thus, the judgment of the single bench was affirmed. Learned counsel has argued that petitioner has not challenged the award of the Central Industrial Tribunal dated 16/7/1991 and therefore the said award has attained finality. Guidelines contained therein have to be scrupulously adhered to for absorption/regular employment/regularization. 9) Shri Rajendra Arora, learned counsel further argued that workman-Anil Mahendru is not a member of the employees association and no letter of authorization at his instance to the employees association to prosecute on his behalf has been produced. Labour Court has failed to appreciate this objection of the management. In this connection, learned counsel referred to the cross-examination of Durga Lal Trivedi (AW2), Organization Secretary of the employees association, who appeared as a witness. Learned counsel argued that the Labour Court has itself interpreted passed by the single bench as well as division bench of this court in holding that if any question of interpretation of National Industrial Tribunal is raised, it can be made only with reference to Section 36-A of the Act of 1947, which tantamount to saying that the workman or the employees association on his behalf could raise the industrial dispute. It is argued that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the workman-Anil Mahendru did not fulfill the basic condition laid down by National Industrial Tribunal of working as a temporary employee or receiving regular scale of pay. Reference in this connection is made to paras 2(a) and 2(e) at page 84 of the letter dated 14/3/1989 (Ann.13 annexed with SBCWP No.2913/2012). While para 2(a) deals with that the work done in regular categories having regular scales of pay shall be taken into account, para 2(e) provides that the self-contractors, electricians, watermen, pumpmen and work-charged employees shall not be entitled for regularization / regular employment. Since the workman-Anil Mahendru was working on contract basis, he was not entitled to regularization. He in his cross-examination has also admitted that he was not being paid the regular scale of pay and that he was paid a salary of Rs.36/- per day for six hours and Rs.18/- per day for three hours working to the extent of only working days. Durga Lal Trivedi (AW2) during his cross-examination admitted that Comptomist is not a regular post and Staff Regulations are not applicable to them. Workman himself in his cross-examination admitted that Corporation issued letter of appointment on temporary basis and that while others were being paid the regular pay scale, but in his case, he was neither issued the appointment letter nor was paid the regular salary. 10) Learned counsel for the respondents in support of his arguments has cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in Secretary State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (3) : (2006) 4 SCC 1 and argued that the Supreme Court in that case held that the workmen, who have been appointed without following the prescribed procedure, were not entitled for regularization. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of this Court in 2006 WLC (Raj.) 38 to the same effect. It is argued that the Tribunal has neither passed the award not the said post is a sanctioned post. Services of the workman therefore cannot be regularized. As regards claim of the workman for his regularization from the earlier date, it was argued that Tribunal has rightly observed that the LIC cannot be burdened to grant him benefit for the intervening period as the first reference was neither contested by the employees association nor by the workman and the second reference was also made with enormous delay. As regards claim of the workman for his regularization from the earlier date, it was argued that Tribunal has rightly observed that the LIC cannot be burdened to grant him benefit for the intervening period as the first reference was neither contested by the employees association nor by the workman and the second reference was also made with enormous delay. It is therefore prayed that the writ petition filed by workman-Anil Mahendru be dismissed. 11) I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 12) This case has had a chequered history, with number of awards being passed by different Tribunals, dispute in respect of the workman-Anil Mahendru having been referred to the Tribunal twice by the appropriate government, he having filed writ petition before this court and thereafter special appeal and failed. What is surprising to notice is that even though the workman-Anil Mahendru was engaged with the LIC on 6/6/1984 and the dispute between the parties started when employees association for the first time submitted a composite representation on 16/10/1986 demanding to regularization of number of workmen including that of workman-Anil Mahendru and since then the employees association has been espousing his case but despite the lapse of 28 long years, the LIC has been regularly continuing the petitioner in their services. They are however not regularizing him in service on the premise that he was engaged on contract basis and that he would not be entitled to regularization in terms of the Justice Tulpule award of the Central Industrial Tribunal as modified by Justice Jamdar. According to Condition No.1 of eligibility clause in the guidelines circulated by the LIC on the basis of first award i.e. Tulpule award is 18/9/1986, those who worked during the period from 1/1/1982 to 20/5/1985 in any capacity namely; temporary, badli, part-time and in regular cadres such as peon, watchman, liftman, sweeper, hamal, typist, steno, assistant etc. having regular scales of pay, should be considered. having regular scales of pay, should be considered. It was further provided in condition No.2 thereof that for those, who worked on part time basis such as coolies, hamals etc., their engagement should not be counted for the purpose of eligibility of seniority and thus qualifying number of days may be determined on the basis of the number of days worked on full time basis and for which the wages have been paid. Condition No.3 thereof provides that the award does not cover the workmen engaged by the contractors, Tenants Association, Licencee's Association, Outside Agency or the Security Guard Boards or those who were engaged on work-charge basis for the project works. When petitioner and four others were not considered as eligible, employees association vide their letter dated 16/10/1986 (Ann.5 in SBCWP No.3830/12) addressed to the Divisional Manager, LIC Division Office, Ajmer agitated the issue that the petitioner has been working as Comptomist since 6/6/1984 against the clear cut vacancy in the divisional office due to conversion of the cadre of Shri M.C. Pareek. Though he has been paid the wages on daily wage basis, yet his case is covered by the award of the National Industrial Tribunal as he is directly receiving the wages from the Corporation against the regular vacancy and not working through any contractor. This demand was later reiterated by employees association vide their letter dated 5/11/1986. 13) Respondents thereafter vide circular dated 25/2/1987 (Ann.8) again laid down certain guidelines with regard to badli/temporary/part-time workmen for the purpose of their regularization. Thus even covered the part-time workmen and substituted/badli workmen for grant of benefits in the regular service. Subsequent to the order of the Supreme Court dated 1/3/1989, a new circular laying down certain fresh guidelines was issued by the LIC on 14/3/1989 (Ann.9 annexed with SBCWP No.3830/2012). First time, it provided that those badli workers, who worked for the period from 1/1/1982 to 20/5/1985 shall be considered for regular appointment subject to their satisfying the conditions mentioned therein. In clause (1) thereof, the minimum period of employment for being eligible for appointment in a Class III post shall be 85 days in a period of any two calendar years during the relevant period. The workmen working against the posts of coolies, hamals etc. for specified job shall not be considered. In clause (1) thereof, the minimum period of employment for being eligible for appointment in a Class III post shall be 85 days in a period of any two calendar years during the relevant period. The workmen working against the posts of coolies, hamals etc. for specified job shall not be considered. According to clause (3) thereof, workmen engaged by the contractors, Tenants Association, Licencee's Association, Outside Agency or the Security Guard Boards or those who were engaged on work-charge basis for the project works were not to be considered. The employees, who were working on seasonal basis were not to be considered. The employees working as self-contractors, electricians, watermen, pumpmen and work-charged employees were also not to be considered. These expectations are reiterated from the earlier circular dated 18/9/1986. 14) Dealing with first of all the objection about the maintainability of second reference, it is evident that the Labour court in the impugned award noted that this court while dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner on 20/10/1999, observed that petitioner had an opportunity to avail the alternative remedy and the division bench has also while upholding the single bench judgment aforesaid, held that the workman had efficacious alternative remedy in the matter. Labour court therefore rightly held in the impugned-award that the workman cannot be left remediless. Despite the first award of no dispute passed by the labour court, there may not be impediment in entertaining the second dispute and passing the fresh award. This issue stands covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Virendra Bhandari supra wherein, in a identical fact situation wherein, after reference made to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, the workman did not contest the dispute and therefore the labour court passed the 'no dispute award'. Workman filed restoration application which too was dismissed. It was thereafter that the government at his instance made another reference on the same question. Tribunal after due adjudication, passed the award. High Court held that second reference was incompetent in view of the 'no dispute award' passed by the Tribunal earlier. In those facts, the Supreme Court in para 4 of the report has held, as under:- “4. A perusal of the award made on the earlier occasion will clearly indicate that there is no adjudication of the dispute at all. High Court held that second reference was incompetent in view of the 'no dispute award' passed by the Tribunal earlier. In those facts, the Supreme Court in para 4 of the report has held, as under:- “4. A perusal of the award made on the earlier occasion will clearly indicate that there is no adjudication of the dispute at all. All that was stated was that the concerned parties had not appeared before the tribunal and in such an event, the tribunal should have noted its inability to record the finding on the issue referred to it not that the dispute does not exist. When there is no adjudication of the matter on merits, it cannot be said that the industrial dispute does not exist. If the industrial dispute still exists, as is opined by the government such a matter can be referred under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. What is to be borne in mind in proceedings of this nature is that the industrial disputes are referred to the labour court or the industrial tribunal for maintenance of industrial peace and not merely for adjudication of the dispute between two private parties. That aspect seemed to have been lost sight of by the tribunal on the first occasion and by the High Court in the order under appeal. In this background, it was certainly permissible for the government to have made the second reference on which occasion after inquiring into the matter, the tribunal adjudicated the matter finally. 15) The objection of maintainability of second dispute is therefore not sustainable. It may also be incidentally aided that there is qualitative difference in the scope of the industrial dispute reference of which was made on earlier occasion and subsequently while issuing fresh notification of reference of the industrial dispute. Earlier on 15/12/1989, the question that was referred was with regard to legality of the action of the management in denying full wages in regular pay scale. The employees association and the workman-Anil Mahendru then immediately on 21/12/1989 requested the appropriate government for suitable amendment in the terms of earlier reference so as to include the question of regularization/regular employment/absorption but that was not acceded to. In the second reference made on 1/2/2007, the question of regularization was specifically incorporated. Even otherwise, therefore the objection to the maintainability of second reference cannot be sustained. In the second reference made on 1/2/2007, the question of regularization was specifically incorporated. Even otherwise, therefore the objection to the maintainability of second reference cannot be sustained. 16) Adverting now to the merits of the case, it should be noted that the labour court in the present case has on the basis of the evidence that was adduced before it held that the workman was engaged on temporary basis. Reliance was placed on the order dated 17/4/1986 (Exb.W-2) in which the petitioner was shown to have been engaged on temporary basis. Similarly, reference was made to the order dated 19/4/1986 (Exb.W-3) in which the workman was shown to have been engaged as temporary Comptomist. Labour court has also found support from letter dated 6/4/1989 (Exb.W-14) whereby, the Senior Divisional Manager Ajmer recommended case of the workman for regularization to the Zonal Manager, LIC of India, New Delhi. Interestingly, in that letter, the Senior Divisional Manager Ajmer writes that there is nothing on record in absence of appointment letter to prove that services of workman-Anil Mahendru were engaged on contract basis or engaged through contractual agency and therefore his case is not covered by para 3 of the order dated 6/6/1986 in which it was stated that the award does not cover the workmen of the category aforesaid. Referring to another clause of the said guidelines, it was also stated by the General Manager that case of Anil Mahendru also cannot be categorized as self contractor under Item No.7(vi) of the memo of understanding in relation to implementation of the award. He stated that claim of Anil Mahendru for absorption appears to have been wrongly rejected. He further maintained that his case cannot be treated worst than the part time workers working entirely on temporary basis on fixed number of hours and paid on the basis of per day duty performed by them. Labour court has also taken note of the fact that the despite the persistent by the management, the workman Anil Mahendru continues to be engaged by the respondents right from 6/6/1984. Labour court has taken note of the statement of AW2, who admitted that workman was in fact engaged and was paid in regular pay scale but some time also paid consolidated salary. AW3 has stated that the workman was engaged by an oral order and was not issued appointment order. Labour court has taken note of the statement of AW2, who admitted that workman was in fact engaged and was paid in regular pay scale but some time also paid consolidated salary. AW3 has stated that the workman was engaged by an oral order and was not issued appointment order. He was not paid wages of Sunday and. NAW1 stated that workman Anil Mahendru was engaged on contract basis in 1984,. He discharged his duties in accounts section. He was paid for his working of six hours per day from Monday to Friday and three hours per day on Saturday on a payment of Rs.6/- per hour i.e. Rs.36/- per day for working for six hours and Rs.18/- per day for working for three hours. In cross-examination, however, he admitted that he did not see his contract of appointment and that such contract of appointment was not even available on record. Labour Court has also examined letter of the Senior Divisional Manager, Ajmer (Exb.A.18) sent to the Zonal Office at New Delhi dated 11/4/1986 wherein, the workman has been described as temporary employee. Exb.19, another letter sent by the Senior Divisional Manager, Ajmer in which it is stated that the workman is discharging the duties on regular basis on the post of Comptomist. In view of so much of evidence analysed above, award of the labour court cannot be suffer from any illegal infirmity. Challenge to the award at the instance of the Management is therefore liable to be repelled. 17) Coming now to the demand of the employees association and the workman that regularization should be made effective from 7/1/1987 and the petitioner should be held entitled to consequential benefits from that date, what appears from record is that though the second reference when it was made was delayed by number of years, yet, record also show that employees association and/or workman have been continuously agitating this issue before the respondents and also before the different courts, which is evident from the first reference made on their demand by the appropriate government on 15/12/1989. But since that reference was defective from the perception of the employees association/workman as it did not cover the issue of regularization and only raised the question about denial of wages in regular pay scale to the workman, the employees association within six days of the issuance of notification on 21/12/1989 wrote back to the appropriate government demanding modification in the terms of reference so as to include the issue of absorption /permanent employment/ regularization of the workman Anil Mahendru. In fact, soon thereafter the appropriate government by their letter dated 23/2/1990 sought comments from the management with regard to such demand of the employees association/workman. In that state of confusion, the employees association did not immediately pursue the reference on the question of denial of wages in regular pay scale and consequently the award of no dispute was passed by the Central Industrial Tribunal on 16/7/1991. But then, this non-contest by the employees association cannot be taken as serious lapse on their part or that of the workman because much before passing of the said award dated 16/7/1991, workman had already filed writ petition before this court in 1990 bearing SBCWP No.5291/1990 seeking regularization with the LIC on the post of Comptomist. It is during pendency of that writ petition that the Senior Divisional Manager has again wrote a letter to the Zonal Office at New Delhi on 20/6/1994 for sympathetically considering the case of the workman-Anil Mahendru. The Single Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 22/10/1999 dismissed the writ petition holding that “I find no merit in the writ petitions and the same are dismissed. The Single Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 22/10/1999 dismissed the writ petition holding that “I find no merit in the writ petitions and the same are dismissed. However, the petitioners shall be free to take any other approbate remedy in accordance with law, if they so choose.” When the matter was taken to the division bench, it affirmed the judgment of the single bench observing that “learned single Judge is perfectly correct in his approach in not entertaining the writ petition as the appellant has efficacious alternative remedy in the matter.” Despite objection of the learned counsel for the respondents that the said observation was made only in the context of interpretation of the award of the industrial tribunal by recourse to Section 36-A of the Act of 1947, that observation of the single bench of this court as affirmed by the division bench cannot be read in isolation as the judgment for that purpose would have to be read as a whole. First 5 pages of the judgment of the single bench are containing the arguments of the parties and ultimate findings have been recorded in the sixth and last page. While dismissing the writ petition, it was observed by the learned single judge that since so many disputed questions of facts and law are involved in the above writ petitions, no interference is called for by this court under its writ jurisdiction. Additionally however it was observed that “further more, even if any question of interpretation of an award of National Industrial Tribunal is raised, the same can only be made only by a competent court under Section 36-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947”. But that incidental observation cannot be read in a manner so as to leave the workman remediless as writ petition was ultimately dismissed on the note that “petitioners shall be free to take any other appropriate remedy in accordance with law, if they so choose.” Division Bench has also affirmed that very view observing that the learned Single Judge is perfectly correct in his approach in not entertaining the writ petition as the appellant has efficacious alternative remedy in the matter. As regards interpretation of award with reference to Section 36-A, such dispute had already been referred and adjudicated upon by the award of the Justice Jamdar. As regards interpretation of award with reference to Section 36-A, such dispute had already been referred and adjudicated upon by the award of the Justice Jamdar. That therefore cannot be a reason to non-suit the workman of a remedy before the Industrial Tribunal. 18) In the facts of the case, when it is not disputed before this court that the petitioner has been continuously working with the respondents in their divisional office ever since he was engaged on 6/6/1984 without any interruption, giving him benefit of regularization from 1/2/2007 i.e. 23 years after his initial date of appointment i.e. 6/6/1984 considering that LIC of India has proceeded to grant the benefit of regularization even to part time and badli employees, would be highly unjust and arbitrary. Considering however that admittedly the dispute was raised first by the employees association on 16/10/1986 and appropriate government had made reference of such dispute vide notification dated 15/12/1989 but this notification was defective, in that the issue of regularization of the workman-Anil Mahendru was not incorporated therein, the employees association immediately represented the matter before the appropriate government for amendment in terms of reference dated 15/12/1989, that the workman himself has approached this court by filing writ petition in 1990 seeking relief of absorption/regular employment/ regularization, and in the facts of the case when the workman continues to be engaged by the respondents through all this interregnum of period over 25 years, ends of justice would be met if petitioner-Anil Mahendru is considered for regularization, though notionally with effect from 15/12/1989, the date on which first reference was made by the government to the labour court and the actual benefits are granted only from 1/2/2007, which is what has been directed by the Labour Court in the impugned award. 19) Upshot of the above discussion is that the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3830/2012 (Northern Zone Insurance Employees Association Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr.) filed on behalf of workman-Anil Mahendru deserves to succeed and is accordingly allowed, whereas S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2913/2012 (Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr. Vs. Northern Zone Insurance Employees Association & Anr.) fails and the same is hereby dismissed. Workman-Anil Mahendru is held entitled to regularization w.e.f. 15/12/1989 to 1/2/2007 notionally with all consequential benefits including that of promotion, if any granted to his juniors in the meantime. Vs. Northern Zone Insurance Employees Association & Anr.) fails and the same is hereby dismissed. Workman-Anil Mahendru is held entitled to regularization w.e.f. 15/12/1989 to 1/2/2007 notionally with all consequential benefits including that of promotion, if any granted to his juniors in the meantime. However, he shall be entitled to the actual monetary benefits only from 1/2/2007, the date from which, his regularization has been directed by the labour court.