JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. The private respondents who were working as piece rate worker/need to need basis worker, for cleaning the roadways buses for which they were getting Rs.2.00 per bus, raised an industrial dispute. The matter was referred to the Labour Court under Section 4-K of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The labour court held that the private respondents cannot be termed that they are working as job worker. Since they were not working on a post, therefore, it cannot be said for reinstating them on any post or any pay scale. The labour court awarded that employer shall take work from the private respondents/workmen in the same manner as was being taken earlier. The labour court though had not awarded for payment for the previous period but awarded the cost of litigation to each workman to the tune of Rs.500.00 and compensation to the tune of Rs.5000.00 to each workman for not complying the provisions of Section 6N of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act. The same has been done. But the award was challenged before this Court. 2. Initially the writ petition was partly allowed vide judgment and order dated 06.12.2012 and the awrd of the labour court as far as it awarded for taking the work from the respondent nos. 2 to 9 as per the need as they were earlier doing was set aside. But subsequently on the application of the respondent nos. 2 to 9, the order dated 06.12.2012 was recalled. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the award of the labour court and other material available on record. 4. The labour court has held that the respondent nos. 2 to 9 were not the regular workmen of the employer and they were not working on any post. As far as this Court is concerned, the same is the view of this Court. As far as the award regarding taking of work is concerned, the liberty is granted to the Corporation to take work from the private respondent nos. 2 to 9, which will not be binding upon the Corporation but the work will be taken from the respondent nos. 2 to 9 as and when it is the requirement of the Corporation, as that is the mandate of the award, which appears to be fair. 5. 2 to 9, which will not be binding upon the Corporation but the work will be taken from the respondent nos. 2 to 9 as and when it is the requirement of the Corporation, as that is the mandate of the award, which appears to be fair. 5. In view thereof, nothing further needs to be said on this aspect. As it has already been stated above, both the parties shall abide with the terms of the award. 6. The writ petition disposed with the above observation. No order as to costs.