Judgment L. Narasimha Reddy, J. This writ appeal is filed against the order dated 28.7.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP No. 12761 of 1998. The writ petition in turn was filed by the appellants herein challenging the Award dated 11.2.1998 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal") in ID No. 42 of 1995. 2. The respondent Nos. 2 to 15 and 3 others were engaged as Casual Workers by the appellant-industry. Initially, they approached the Conciliation Officer with a request to arrange for regularization of their services. It is stated that even while the conciliation was in progress, the appellant, retrenched the respondents 2 to 14 (for short "the workmen") and on the request made by them the Government issued G.O. Rt. No. 1965, dated 24.8.1995 referring the dispute to the Labour Court viz., "Whether the management of Shriram Fuel Injection Industries, Balanagar, Hyderabad is justified in terminating the services of 17 casual workers, whose names are given in annexure, without considering their demand for regularization of their service?" 3. The workmen pleaded that many workers, who are on par with, or juniors to them, were regularized and even while they have been agitating for their regularization and their services were terminated. The appellant opposed the I.D. and pleaded that on account of its financial fragility a scheme was framed by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for short "the BIFR") under the Sick Industries (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA). On merits they stated that the retrenchment had to be resorted to on account of want of work and that the concept of regularization is unknown to the Industrial Disputes. 4. Through its Award dated 11.2.1998, the Labour Court (a) has set aside the order of retrenchment, (b) directed the reinstatement of the workmen with backwages and (c) directed that the appellant shall regularize the services of the workmen. WP No. 12761 of 1998 filed by the petitioner challenging the Award was dismissed. Hence the writ appeal. 5. Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the retrenchment had to be undertaken due to paucity of work and financial difficulties, and it is clearly evident from the very fact that a scheme was framed by the BIFR. Hence the writ appeal. 5. Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the retrenchment had to be undertaken due to paucity of work and financial difficulties, and it is clearly evident from the very fact that a scheme was framed by the BIFR. He further submits that even where, an order of retrenchment is found to be not in accordance with law, a direction is given for reinstatement not as a matter of course, particularly when the workmen are engaged on casual basis and that the Labour Court committed in directing the reinstatement to the service and granting of relief of backwages, in the instant case. Learned Counsel further submits that the regularization of services is a phenomenon that exists in the service of the Government and its organizations and that it is totally unknown to private industrial establishments. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgments reported in Sita Ram and others v. Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute, (2008)5 SCC 75 ; Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation and another v. Gitam Singh, (2013)5 SCC 136 ; Senior Superintendent Telegraph {Traffic} Bhopal, (2010)6 SCC 773 and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Man Singh, (2012)1 SCC 558 . 6. Sri B.G. Ravinder Reddy, learned Counsel for the workmen submits that the reference by the Government to the Tribunal was comprehensive in nature and that it has taken in its fold, the aspect of regularization also. He submits that after taking into account, the various factors borne out from the record the Tribunal recorded a finding that there was no justification for retrenching the workmen and accordingly order of the retrenchment was set aside. He further submits that though the respondents were continuing in service for a long time rendering the same service as was being rendered by many regular workers, they have been retrenched and accordingly a direction was issued for reinstatement into service. Learned Counsel further submits that the appellant did not raise any objection before the Labour Court, about the question pertaining to regularization of services, it is not open for them to raise the same at this stage for the first time. Learned Counsel further submits that the appellant did not raise any objection before the Labour Court, about the question pertaining to regularization of services, it is not open for them to raise the same at this stage for the first time. It is also his case that the very act of refusing to regularize the services of respondents even while persons similarly situated were regularized, would constitute an act of unfair labour practice and that the direction issued for regularization cannot be found fault with. 7. Three separate aspects arise for consideration in this writ appeal in view of the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the patties. The first is about determining the validity and the legality of the retrenchment. Second is about grant of relief of reinstatement with backwages and third is about direction for regularization of services. 8. That the respondents were retrenched from service, is beyond any pale of doubt. It was not even pleaded by the appellant that the procedure prescribed under Section 25-F of the Act, much less Section 25-N of the Act, was followed before retrenching them. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the retrenchment of the respondent was contrary to the provisions of law, and the view taken by the learned Single Judge on this aspect cannot be found fault. 9. The second aspect is about the grant of relief of reinstatement into service with backwages. Such relief used to be treated almost as a corollary once the retrenchment is found to be illegal. However, in the recent past the Supreme Court maintained a clear distinction between the two and it was held that reinstatement into the service and grant of backwages cannot follow as a matter of course. In Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited's case (supra), it was observed that such a relief viz. reinstatement into service with backwages cannot be ordered when the worker concerned is a daily wager and did not hold any specific post of employment or was not a permanent employee. Similar view was expressed in Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal (supra). Same situation obtains in the present case. When the respondents were retrenched, when they were working as casual workers. 10. Similar view was expressed in Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal (supra). Same situation obtains in the present case. When the respondents were retrenched, when they were working as casual workers. 10. In Rajasthan Development Corporation's case (supra), the Supreme Court has set aside the Award insofar as it directed the reinstatement into services with 25% back wages, and it was substituted with a direction for payment of compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. 11. The learned Counsel for the workmen placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court reported in G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Panthnagar, Nainital v. State of U.P. and others, (2000)7 SCC 109 . The distinguishing feature is that the employer therein is the University, created under statute and not industrial undertaking. Therefore, we are of the view that the direction issued by the Tribunal for reinstatement into service and for payment of backwages .cannot be sustained in law, particularly when the respondents were only casual workers. 12. Coming to the 3rd aspect, regularization of service is mostly a phenomenon, that exists in Government services or where the service is governed by a set of rules. Such an event takes place when an employee is initially appointed on temporary basis on being selected, is put on probation for certain period and it is on successful completion of that probation he is appointed as a regular member of the cadre or 'service'. It is difficult to imagine the process of regularization, when the person concerned is a casual worker. Secondly, the regularization, if at all can take place only against a post which is borne out in the cadre and the qualifications stipulated there for are fulfilled. It is only when an assessing agency verifies the caliber of a candidate and finds him to be satisfying the relevant conditions, and there exists clear vacancy, that an occasion would arise for regularization of services of the employee. In Hari Nandan Prasad and another v. Employer I/R to Management of FCI and another, AIR 2014 SC 1848, the Supreme Court took a view as under: "On harmonious reading of the two judgments discussed in detail above, we are of the opinion that when there are posts available, in the absence of any unfair labour practice the Labour Court would not give direction for regularization only because a worker has continued as daily wage worker/ad hoc/temporary worker for number of years. Further, if there are no posts available, such a direction for regularization would be impermissible. In the aforesaid circumstances giving of direction to regularize such a person, only on the basis of number of years put in by such a worker as daily wager etc., may amount to backdoor entry into the service which is an anathema to Article 14 of the Constitution. Further, such a direction would not be given when the concerned worker does not meet the eligibility requirement of the post in question as per the Recruitment Rules. However, wherever it is found that similarly situated workmen are regularized by the employer itself under some scheme or otherwise and the workmen in question who have approached Industrial/Labour Court are at par with them, direction of regularization in such cases may be legally justified, otherwise, non-regularization of the leftover workers itself would amount to invidious discrimination qua them in such cases and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Thus, the Industrial adjudicator would be achieving the equality by upholding Article 14, rather than violating this constitutional provision." 13. From this it becomes clear that, firstly, a direction as to regularization can be issued only when an act of unfair labour practice has been proved to the satisfaction of the Court, and secondly, it must be on the strength of a scheme. More than all, it was with reference to an agency, which answers the description of "State". 14. In the instant case, firstly, the appellant is not a statutory organization. Secondly, it is not even the case of the respondents that there exists a scheme for regularization. Thirdly, they did not raise an issue about unfair labour practice, on the part of respondents, much less any relief claimed on that. Viewed from any angle, the direction issued by the Tribunal for regularization cannot be sustained in law. 15. In view of our finding on the first question namely that the retrenchment of the respondents-employees was contrary to law, they deserve to be granted a relief in relation thereto. We have expressed our view that the reinstatement into service with backwages, is not permissible as the law stands now. In the context of determining the compensation, we are guided by a precedent viz., that the persons similarly situated as the respondents were paid a sum of Rs. We have expressed our view that the reinstatement into service with backwages, is not permissible as the law stands now. In the context of determining the compensation, we are guided by a precedent viz., that the persons similarly situated as the respondents were paid a sum of Rs. 40,000/- in the year 2004 in full and final settlement of their claims. If that fact, as well as inflationary trends over the past decade are considered, the figure can be taken at Rs. 2,00,000/-. It is brought to our notice that recently a sum of Rs. 40,000/- was paid to each of the workmen towards backwages and wages under Section 17-B of the Act. We are of the view that a payment of Rs. 1,60,000/- to each of the respondents, would meet the ends of justice. 16. We, therefore, allow the writ appeal, upholding the Award, insofar as it has declared the retrenchment of the respondents as contrary under Sections 25-F and 25-N of the Act, but setting aside the direction as to reinstatement into service and regularization of the respondents. In the place of it, we direct that the respondents are entitled to be paid a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- each as compensation. This shall be in addition to the amount, if any, which the respondents are entitled under the respective statutes. 17. In case any of the respondents settled the matter during the pendency of the writ appeal with the appellant, they shall not be entitled for this benefit. There shall be no order as to costs. 18. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this appeal shall also stand disposed of.