JUDGMENT : S. Panda, J. - The petitioners in this writ petition challenge the award dated 09.07.2010 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in Industrial Dispute Case No. 1/2003 directing the petitioners-Management to regularise the service of the opposite party/workman against the sanctioned regular post of Lift Man with effect from 05.10.1993 with all consequential service benefits including pay scale and other allowances. 2. The brief facts leading to the writ application are as follows: The opposite party-workman claimed to have been working as Lift Operator in State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Bhubaneswar since 05.10.1993 against the permanent sanctioned post through the process of selection. Since his service was not regularized, he filed an application before the appropriate authority for regularisation of his service. Thereafter, the Government of India in the Department of Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of Section-10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 referred an industrial dispute existing between the petitioners-Management and the opposite party-workman vide letter No. L-12012/236/2002 IR (B-I) dated 23.12.2002 to the following effect. Whether the action of the Management of State Bank of India, Bhubaneswar for not regularising the service of Shri Bijay Kumar Panda, Lift Operator who has rendered more than nine years of continuous service without any break against sanctioned regular post of Lift Operator and also not paying on the basis of scale of wages for the sub-staff w.e.f., 05.10.1993 is justified?. If not, what relief the workman is entitled and from which date.". Before the Tribunal the opposite party-workman contended that he had been working as Lift Operator on temporary roll under petitioner no.1 since 05.10.1993. His appointment was made through due process of selection against the permanent sanctioned post of Lift Man and even though he has been working in his duties efficiently and diligently and by that process he had completed 17 years of service, but the service of the opposite party-workman is not being regularised by petitioner No.1 and appropriate pay scale and other service benefits at par with other employees of the bank is not being released in his favour. Therefore, he contended that the opposite party-workman is entitled to be regularised against the sanctioned post of Lift Man and for payment of regular pay scale and other service benefits from the date of his initial engagement in the said post. The petitioners-management while denying the contentions of the opposite party-workman contended that the workman had never been engaged as Lift Operator on temporary roll and he was engaged as an independent contractor on retainer basis for lift operation at its zonal office. His engagement was valid till the need of the management and there was no relationship of employer and employee between the workman and the petitioners-management. The management also denied the contention of the workman that he was appointed in due process of selection against the sanctioned post. Before the Tribunal the opposite party-workman examined himself as W.W.1 and exhibited documents from Exts-1 to 11. On the other hand the management examined two witnesses and did not exhibit any document in support of their case. The Tribunal after going through the pleadings of the respective parties framed four issues such as 1. Whether this Tribunal has jurisdiction to try this case. 2. Whether the services of the workman Shri Bijay Kumar Panda, Lift Operator can be regularized. 3. Whether Shri Bijay Kumar Panda, workman has got necessary qualification to be regularised against a permanent post. 4. If not, to what relief he is entitled to. After considering the materials available on record, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that the disputant-workman is entitled for regularisation of his service against the regular sanctioned post of Lift Man. His service is to be regularised with effect from his initial engagement, i.e. 05.10.1993 and he is entitled to all consequential service benefits including the pay scale and other allowances. Such Award of the Tribunal dated 09.07.2010 passed in Industrial Dispute Case No. 1/2003 is challenged by the petitioners-Management in the present writ application. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the opposite party-workman was engaged purely on retainer basis as a stop-gap arrangement and he has not been recruited through the selection process. Such Award of the Tribunal dated 09.07.2010 passed in Industrial Dispute Case No. 1/2003 is challenged by the petitioners-Management in the present writ application. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the opposite party-workman was engaged purely on retainer basis as a stop-gap arrangement and he has not been recruited through the selection process. His engagement was purely through backdoor method and as such the opposite party-workman has no enforceable legal right to be permanently absorbed and regularised in view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others, reported in AIR 2006 SC 1806 . He further submits that the opposite party-workman since does not fulfil the laid down criteria for appointment of Lift operator in the Bank, the submission of the opposite party-workman to have engaged in due process of selection is wrong. He further submits that since the Employment Exchange failed to sponsor adequate names of the candidates, no permanent appointment of Lift Operators was made and the sanction lapsed during the course of time. However the management has not denied the continuance of the workman in the post from 1993. The workman has discharged his duties to the satisfaction of his authority having requisite qualification, etc. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party-workman supported the impugned award. He submitted that the action of the management is nothing but exploitation of a workman for a longer period without regularising his service, even if sanctioned posts are available and he has been working in the said post since 1993. 5. This Court heard the rival contentions raised by the parties in the writ application vis-a-vis perused the award and materials on record. It has been admitted by the petitioners that the Local Head Office approved two posts of lift operators and advised the Zonal Office to recruit the liftmen calling candidates from local Employment. In the said sanctioned posts, they allowed the petitioner to work from 05.10.1993 till today. As such the petitioner has been working in sanctioned post uninterruptedly and discharging his duty efficiently and diligently. It is also the admitted fact that since December, 2004 the Bank is paying the workman the basic salary of a Lift Operator plus DA. 6. In the said sanctioned posts, they allowed the petitioner to work from 05.10.1993 till today. As such the petitioner has been working in sanctioned post uninterruptedly and discharging his duty efficiently and diligently. It is also the admitted fact that since December, 2004 the Bank is paying the workman the basic salary of a Lift Operator plus DA. 6. This Court also went through the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others reported in AIR 2006 SC 1806 , wherein it has been held thus:- There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa, R.N. Nanjundappa (supra), and B.N. Nagarajan (supra) and referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. The aforesaid principle has also been followed in the case of State of Karnataka & others v. G.V. Chandrashekhar reported in (2009) 4 SCC 342 . 7. From the above facts, it can be inferred that the engagement of the workman may be irregular, but not illegal. He has been continuing as such for more than 10 years in a sanctioned post and discharging his duty to the satisfaction of the authority. That apart, his continuance in the said post is not with the intervention of Courts or Tribunals. 8. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity or irregularity in the impugned award. There is no error on the face of the record. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned award. The writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Final Result : Dismissed