ORDER : D.N. Patel, J. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original respondent No. 1 of a writ petition being W.P. (L) No. 1529 of 2004. This writ petition was preferred by the respondent-Management, challenging the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi, in Reference Case No. 12 of 1994, award dated 30.03.2003. This writ petition, preferred by the respondent-Management was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 23.04.2010, and the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi in Reference Case No. 12 of 1994 dated 30.3.2003 was quashed and set aside mainly on the ground that the workmen who raised industrial dispute were in fact not the workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for the sake of brevity here-in-after referred to as the 'Act, 1947') of the Management of the Bokaro Steel Plant. In fact they were the employees of M/s Trinity Technology Group (T.T.G.) to whom the contract was given by M/s. Bokaro Steel Plant. On this ground, writ petition preferred by the Management was allowed by the learned Single Judge, and hence, the present workmen has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Factual Matrix : - It appears from the facts of the case that M/s Bokaro Steel Plant is a steel manufacturing company. The main object of this company was or the goal to achieve is to manufacture varieties of steels which are manufactured as per the requirement of the customer. There is a captive consumption plant which manufactures Coke. This Coke is produced from Coal. The Coke is required to be blast in the furnace so that from iron ore percentage of carbon can be reduced and steel can be manufactured. The reduction agent is a Coke. Thus, there is integrated plant of manufacturing of Coke. - For the efficient manufacturing and blasting of Coal in the furnace or the production of the hot metal Coke, Oven Plant requires Coke Oven Battery and other ancillaries units. From similarly situated Bhilai Steel Plant-a comparatively older plant, from where, experiences was shared, for the efficient functioning or the working of Coke Oven Battery, Goose Neck and Oven Door which must be maintained properly. From similarly situated Bhilai Steel Plant-a comparatively older plant, from where, experiences was shared, for the efficient functioning or the working of Coke Oven Battery, Goose Neck and Oven Door which must be maintained properly. This is a very super technical and complex nature of work for which Workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act, 1947, of Bokaro Steel Plant cannot be engaged for such type of highly complex nature of work as Bhilai Steel Plant has given a similar contract, to be given at the Bokaro Steel Plant. - Thus, for partial modernization of efficient working of Coke Oven Plant, Coke Oven Battery has to work efficiently for which Goose Neck and cleaning of the Oven Door has to be done highly efficiently. Out of verities of methods to achieve this goal, for making the machinery more productive and more efficient, help of a contractor namely, M/s. Trinity Technology Group was taken by the Bokaro Steel Plant. - It farther appears that M/s. Trinity Technology Group has to engage skilled workers for cleaning of the Goose Neck and for cleaning of the Oven Door with the help of the High Pressure Water Jet. This efficient work can be done by using High Pressure Water Jet, for such a technical work, contractor-M/s. Trinity Technology Group has to engage its own employees. This type of employees are technically known in the labour jurisprudence as "Contractor's Employees". - The work of installation, operation, maintenance and testing was given to M/s. Trinity Technology Group. The work was over as alleged by the Management as on 30.9.1992. In paragraph-16 of the written statement, filed before the Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi in Reference Case No.12 of 1994, whereas as per the workers the said work was completed as on 16.3.1991. - From 01.10.1992 the contract of installation and operation was over by M/s. Trinity Technology Group. As installation, operation and testing etc., was over, the work of the contractor was also over. - From 01.10.1992 the contract of installation and operation was over by M/s. Trinity Technology Group. As installation, operation and testing etc., was over, the work of the contractor was also over. Once there was end of the contract by M/s. Bokaro Steel Plant obviously, there was no need of the workers of the contractor and now these workers of the contractor raised an industrial disputes and the said dispute was spoused by the Trade Union, and ultimately reference was made under Section 10 of the Act, 1947 to the effect whether there was relationship of employer and employees (it ought to be kept in mind that word is "Workmen") between. Bokaro Steel Plant and Shri H. Giri and 58 other labourers mentioned in the schedule and whether to prevent them from doing operational work from 01.10.1992 is proper. This reference was made under Section 10 of the Act, 1947, and ultimately award was passed in favour of this appellant, vide award dated 30.3.2003. - This award was challenged by the Management in writ petition being W.P. (L) No.1529 of 2004 which was allowed by the learned Single Judge by judgment and order dated 23.4.2010 and the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi in Reference Case No. 12 of 1994 was quashed and set aside, and hence, this appellant has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. 3. The arguments canvassed by the counsel for the appellant : I. Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that after installation and erection work was over on 16.3.1991, this appellant Workmen continued their work up to 31.9.1992, and hence, their services cannot be terminated in violation of Section 25(F) of the Act, 1947. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition, preferred by the Management. II. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that they have worked for more than 240 days in one continuous year. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. III. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that after the contract was over on 16.3.1991, second contractor was never given to M/s. Trinity Technology Group. This aspect of the matter has also been pointed by the witnesses of the Management, i.e., M.W.-1, M.W.-2 and M.W.-3. III. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that after the contract was over on 16.3.1991, second contractor was never given to M/s. Trinity Technology Group. This aspect of the matter has also been pointed by the witnesses of the Management, i.e., M.W.-1, M.W.-2 and M.W.-3. Even training was given to this appellant, identity cards etc., have also been given by the Bokaro Steel Plant, these aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition preferred by the respondent-Management. IV. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon' the following decisions :- (a) AIR 1964 SC 477 , (b) AIR 1978 SC 1410 , (c) AIR 1988 SC 2168 , (d) (2001) 7 SCC 1 , (e) (2005) 10 SCC 792 , (f) AIR 2008 SCW 3996 , (g) 2014 (2) JLJR 329 , (h) 2015 AIR SCW 25, V. On the basis of the aforesaid decisions, it is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that once the contract is over and if this appellant have continued to work with this respondent-Management especially when training was given, identity cards have also been given by the respondent-Management, they are the Workmen of the Bokaro Steel Plant, and hence, the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in writ petition being W.P. (L) No. 1529 of 2004, dated 23.4.2010, deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Arguments canvassed by the counsel for the respondents : I. Counsel, Mr. Abhishek Chaturvedi, appearing for the respondent-Management, has submitted that for the modernization of the plant of the Bokaro Steel Plant especially of the integrated plant of Coke Oven Plant and in that Coke Oven Battery and in that Goose Neck and for cleaning of the Oven Door, contract was given to M/s. Trinity Technology Group and they installed High Pressure Water Jet. For this complex and technical work, a contract was given as the regular employees of the Bokaro Steel Plant were not used to install or operate the same. The contractor has to engage its own workers. This appellant are the workers of the contractor namely, viz., M/s. Trinity Technology Group. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition preferred by the respondent-Management. II. Counsel, Mr. The contractor has to engage its own workers. This appellant are the workers of the contractor namely, viz., M/s. Trinity Technology Group. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition preferred by the respondent-Management. II. Counsel, Mr. Abhishek Chaturvedi, further submitted that there is no employer and workmen relationship between this appellant and the respondent-Management, because they are the workers of the contractor. They were engaged only for a limited purpose. The workers of the contractor have nothing to do with the regular, routine and continuous work of the Bokaro Steel Plant which is meant for manufacturing of varieties of steel. Cleaning of Goose Neck and cleaning of Oven Door by High Pressure Water Jet is not the main work of the Bokaro Steel Plant. Whenever any new machineries are installed by way of modernization, there is bound to be an engagement of the contractor for installation, operation and atlest for testing period more than one contract was given to M/s. Trinity Technology Group. Whenever there is a contract given for such type of modernization, there is bound to be a time limit. Time is essence of the contract, but, it happens that some times the work is completed, later on merely because one of the work was to be completed on 16.3.1991, that does not mean that the work of installation of High Pressure Water Jet was over exactly on 16.3.1991. It is categorically mentioned in para-16 of the written statement filed by the Management in Reference Case No. 12 of 1994 that the work of the contractor was over on 30.9.1992, hence their services were automatically over on 01.10.1992, because the contract was over. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition preferred by the respondent-Management. III. It is further submitted by Mr. Chaturvedi that what is stated by the Management witnesses is absolutely true and correct. This appellant were the workers of the contractor, they were engaged for specific and complex work, they were engaged for installation of modem machineries through contractor which is installation of the High Pressure Water Jet for efficient cleaning of Goose Neck and Oven Door which increases of the efficiency of manufacturing of Coke from Coal which is to be injected in the industrial furnace for manufacturing of steel. Once the contract is over of M/s. Trinity Technology Group, the workers engaged by the contractor have to go home, they cannot be treated the employees of Bokaro Steel Plant. Bokaro Steel Plant is a Public Sector Undertaking and is a "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. If any employee is to be engaged permanently, there is bound to be an advertisement, rule of recruitment is bound to be followed by the "State"-Bokaro Steel Plant. Back door entrance cannot be for the employees of M/s. Bokaro Steel Plant. There is no back door method of getting public employment. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition preferred by the respondent-Management, hence, this Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained. IV. Counsel for the respondent-Management has also relied, on the following decisions :- (a) (2001) 7 SCC 1 , (b) (2005) 5 SCC 100 , (c) (2008) 9 SCC 377 . V. On the basis of the aforesaid decisions, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondent-Management that contract given to M/s. Trinity Technology Group for installation, erection, operation, maintenance and testing of the High Pressure Water Jet for clearing out Goose Neck and Doors of the Oven has been wrongly treated as a sham contract without appreciating the fact that such highly complex work cannot be done by the Bokaro Steel Plant itself. Their workers are not properly trained for erection of such modern machineries and such work is bound to be given to a contractor who has successfully looked after the work carried out at Bhilai Steel Plant and the contractor has engaged the workers who have raised the industrial dispute. Once the contract is over the workers of the contractor cannot claim to be the Workmen of M/s. Bokaro Steel Plant. These workers are not the residues who are to be retained by the Public Sector Undertaking that too without any public advertisement on a public post. Identity cards etc., have been given just for their valid entry into the premises and nothing beyond that. These workers are not the residues who are to be retained by the Public Sector Undertaking that too without any public advertisement on a public post. Identity cards etc., have been given just for their valid entry into the premises and nothing beyond that. Training, if at all, is given, it is meant for efficient working of the workers of the contractor and not to make them Workmen of the Bokaro Steel Plant, otherwise it will amount to back door entry on the public post in a Public Sector Undertaking, which is not permissible in the eye of law. Enough damage has already been caused in such type of Institution in the past. Enough is enough. May be, at some point of time, by regulation, the clarity of such type of back door entries has been misinterpreted as regular workmen in M/s Bokaro Steel Plant, but, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge while deciding writ petition preferred by the respondent-Management in treating this appellant as the workers of the contractor and not the Workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act, 1947 of M/s Bokaro Steel Plant, and hence, this Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained by this Court. VI. It is further submitted by counsel, Mr. Abhishek Chaturvedi, that working of 240 days is not a golden stick which converts such type of workers into regular Workmen of Bokaro Steel Plant. It is a wrong notion in the mind of the appellant. Even, if, this workers worked for 240 days, if they are engaged by the contractor, they will have to go home even after working of 240 days, because they were never employed by the Bokaro Steel Plant. VII. It is further submitted by Mr. Abhishek Chaturvedi that neither any appointment letter was given by M/s. Bokaro Steel Plant to the workers, who are alleged to be the Workmen of Bokaro Steel Plant, nor their salary has ever been paid by M/s. Bokaro Steel Plant. There was no supervision and control by M/s. Bokaro Steel Plant. The management is concerned with the end result of the erection, installation, operation, testing and running of High Pressure Water Jet for efficient cleaning of Goose Neck and Oven Doors. The management is not concerned with the method of achieving them. There was no supervision and control by M/s. Bokaro Steel Plant. The management is concerned with the end result of the erection, installation, operation, testing and running of High Pressure Water Jet for efficient cleaning of Goose Neck and Oven Doors. The management is not concerned with the method of achieving them. Thus, the method of achieving the end was in the hands of the contractor, M/s. Trinity Technology Group and not with M/s. Bokaro Steel Plant. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition and quashing setting aside the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi in Reference Case No. 12 of 1994. Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained by this Court. Reasons : 5. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal mainly for the following facts and reasons : I. M/s. Bokaro Steel Plant is manufacturing varieties of steel as per the requirements of the customers. This Bokaro Steel Plant is also having captive Plant of manufacturing Coke. Manufacturing of Coke is from Coal. Manufacturing of Coke requires efficient Coke Oven Plant. This Coke Oven Plant requires Coke Oven Battery and other ancillary units. This Coke Oven Batteries are highly dependent upon efficient functioning of Goose Neck as well as upon efficient cleaning of Oven Doors. Modernization was required by the Bokaro Steel Plant which is not an easy phenomenon for manufacturing units. Guidance has been taken from another similarly situated, Bhilai Steel Plant where High Pressure water Jets were installed. Ultimately the Management of Bokaro Steel Plant, took the decision of installation of modem machineries and later on contract was given to M/s. Trinity Technology Group. The nature of work given under the contract, being of special type of contract, was for erection, installation, operation, after proper testing of High Pressure Water Jet for the purpose of cleaning of Goose Neck and Oven Doors. The very purpose of such type of modernization is to increase efficiency of manufacturing of Coke from Coal. This Coke is to be injected in to the blast furnace for manufacturing of steel. Thus, highly complex technical work was assigned to the contractor. The very purpose of such type of modernization is to increase efficiency of manufacturing of Coke from Coal. This Coke is to be injected in to the blast furnace for manufacturing of steel. Thus, highly complex technical work was assigned to the contractor. It ought to be kept in mind that the regular Workmen of M/s. Bokaro Steel Plant cannot install, operate, run and do the testing work of such type of High Pressure Water Jet, and hence, contractor has to bring its own workers. Such type of highly technical work has to be done by the contractor's workers. II. In the facts of the present case also, contractor namely, M/s. Trinity Technology Group brought their own workers. High Pressure Water Jets were installed by virtue of more than one contractors. Whenever such type of contracts are given, time bound schedule is also given, which is referred in award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi. Merely because this date was given that does not mean that mathematically the work was completed on 16.3.1991. It has been stated in paragraph 16 of the written statement filed by the Management in Reference Case No. 12 of 1994 that M/s. Trinity Technology Group has completed their work on 30.9.1992. Once the work was over, from the next date, i.e., 01.10.1992 workers brought by the contractor have to go home, unless, they are given appointment by the M/s. Bokaro Steel Plant at their own. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while allowing writ petition preferred by the management and while quashing and setting aside the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi in Reference Case No. 12 of 1994. III. It has been categorically mentioned that M/s. Bokaro Steel Plant has given a contract for installation of High Pressure Water Jet. Thus, M/s. Bokaro Steel Plant was concerned with the erection, installation, testing and operation of the new machineries by the contractor. Thus, the Management was concerned with the "end results" and not with the "method of achieving the said end". Thus Management was concerned with the end results and how to get the work done was the botheration of the contractor. Thus, the Management was concerned with the "end results" and not with the "method of achieving the said end". Thus Management was concerned with the end results and how to get the work done was the botheration of the contractor. He has to engage his own workers and he has to suffer for their efficiency and inefficiency, but the Management of the Bokaro Steel Plant was concerned with the final installation of High Pressure Water Jet and that too after proper testing, operation must be finally approved by the Management. Thus, once the work of the contractor is over, workers, skilled, unskilled or semiskilled of the contractor have to go home, with the contractor and they cannot remain with M/s. Bokaro Steel Plant. They are annexures of the contractor. The contractor cannot leave alone, leaving behind, its workers to increase the strength of M/s. Bokaro Steel Plant. IV. M/s. Bokaro Steel Plant is a Public Sector Undertaking and owned, managed and run by the Central Government. It is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Public employment cannot be given, by the Bokaro Steel, Plant without any public advertisement and without following due procedure established by the law. The back door entry has no place in a public employment. If the contractor is going out of the Management premises after the contract work is over, the contractor has to go out with all his workers. Moreover, no appointment letter has been given by the Bokaro Steel Plant to the workers of the contractor. No salary has been paid by the Bokaro Steel Plant to the workers of the contractor. How the erection work is to be done, that was left at the discretion of the contractor. The Management-M/s. Bokaro Steel Plant was concerned with the end results and not with the method of achieving the said end. Thus, there was no supervision and control of Bokaro Steel Plant upon the work of the workers of the contractor, and hence, as a cumulative effect of these factors, the workers engaged by the contractor-M/s. Trinity Technology Group cannot be said to be Workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act, 1947 of M/s. Bokaro Steel Plant. Thus, there was no supervision and control of Bokaro Steel Plant upon the work of the workers of the contractor, and hence, as a cumulative effect of these factors, the workers engaged by the contractor-M/s. Trinity Technology Group cannot be said to be Workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act, 1947 of M/s. Bokaro Steel Plant. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while quashing and setting aside the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi in Reference Case No. 12 of 1994. V. Even if such type of workers of contractor has worked for more than 240 days, that does not mean that they are the Workmen of M/s. Bokaro Steel Plant. Such type of argument is highly ridiculous. It is wrong notion in the mind of the appellant that if any industry has given a contract and worker of contractor if has worked for 240 days or more, he shall be deemed to be Workmen of the original industry e.g., if the contractor is assigned any work which is to be completed within the period for 3 years, in such eventuality, the workers engaged by the contractor are bound to work for more than 240 days within the factory premises of the original employer that does not mean that such type of workers of the contractor are automatically the workmen of the original employer-M/s. Bokaro Steel Plant. Working of 240 days even otherwise also is not a magic bond which converts such type of workers into regular Workmen or regular employees, of the original employer. VI. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad v. Anil Kumar Mishra reported in (2005) 5 SCC 122 in paragraph 5, which reads as under : "5. We are unable to uphold the order of the High Court. There were no sanctioned posts in existence to which they could be said to have been appointed. The assignment was an ad hoc one which anticipatedly spent itself out. It is difficult to envisage for them the status of workmen on the analogy of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, importing the incidents of completion of 240 days' work. The assignment was an ad hoc one which anticipatedly spent itself out. It is difficult to envisage for them the status of workmen on the analogy of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, importing the incidents of completion of 240 days' work. The legal consequences that flow from work for that duration under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, are entirely different from what, by way of implication, is attributed to the present situation by way of analogy. The completion of 240 days' work does not, under that law import the right to regularisation. It merely imposes certain obligations on the employer at the time of termination of the service. It is not appropriate to import and apply that analogy, in an extended or enlarged form here." (Emphasis supplied) VII. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.P. Housing Board v. Manoj Shrivastava, reported in (2006) 2 SCC 702 in paragraph 17, which reads as under : "17. It is now well settled that only because a person had been working for more than 240 days, he does not derive any legal right to be reularized in service. (See Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P. v. Anil Kumar Mishra; Executive Engineer, ZP Engineering Divn. v. Digambara Rao; Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Bhola Singh; Manager, Reserve Bank of India v. S. Mani and Neeraj Awasthi.)" (Emphasis supplied) VIII. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corpn. Ltd. v. S.C. Pandey, reported in (2006) 2 SCC 716 in paragraph 17, which reads as under : "17. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corpn. Ltd. v. S.C. Pandey, reported in (2006) 2 SCC 716 in paragraph 17, which reads as under : "17. The question raised in this appeal is now covered by a decision of this Court in M.P. Housing Board v. Manoj Shrivastava wherein this Court clearly opined that : (1) when the conditions of service are governed by two statutes; one relating to selection and appointment and the other relating to the terms and conditions of service, an endeavour should be made to give effect to both of the statutes; (2) a daily-wager does not hold a post as he is not appointed in terms of the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder and in that view of the matter he does not derive any legal right; (3) only because an employee had been working for more than 240 days that by itself would not confer any legal right upon him to be regularised in service; (4) if an appointment has been made contrary to the provisions of the statute the same would be void and the effect thereof would be that no legal right was derived by the employee by reason thereof." (Emphasis supplied) IX. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Post Master General, Kolkata v. Tutu Das (Dutta), reported in (2007) 5 SCC 317 in paragraph 16, which reads as under : "16. The short order which was the subject-matter of decision of this Court in Debika Guha also stood overruled in Umadevi (3). It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Post Master General, Kolkata v. Tutu Das (Dutta), reported in (2007) 5 SCC 317 in paragraph 16, which reads as under : "16. The short order which was the subject-matter of decision of this Court in Debika Guha also stood overruled in Umadevi (3). We may at this stage also notice that the concept of 240 days to be the cut-off mark for the purpose of regularisation of services came up for consideration of this Court in Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad v. Anil Kumar Mishra wherein it was clearly laid down that the completion of 240 days of continuous service in a year would be attracted only in a case where retrenchment has been effected without complying with the provisions contained in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, but would not be relevant for regularisation of service." (Emphasis supplied) X. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Dan Babadur Singh, reported in (2007) 6 SCC 207 in paragraph 18, which reads as under : "18. The next question which requires consideration is whether completion of 240 days in a year confers any right on an employee or workman to claim regularisation in service. In Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad v. Anil Kumar Mishra it was held that the completion of 240 days' work does not confer the right to regularisation under the Industrial Disputes Act. It merely imposes certain obligations on the employer at the time of termination of the services. In M.P. Housing Board v. Manoj Shrivastava (para 17) after referring to several earlier decisions it has been reiterated that it is well-settled that only because a person had been working for more than 240 days, he does not derive any legal right to be regularised in service. This view has been reiterated in Gangadhar Pillai v. Siemens Ltd. The same question has been examined in considerable detail with reference to an employee working in a Government company in Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen and paras 34 and 35 of the Report are being reproduced below : (SCC P. 426) "34. Thus, it is well settled that there is no right vested in any daily wager to seek regularisation. Regularisation can only be done in accordance with the rules and not de hors the rules. Thus, it is well settled that there is no right vested in any daily wager to seek regularisation. Regularisation can only be done in accordance with the rules and not de hors the rules. In the case of E. Ramakrishnan v. State of Kerala this Court held that there can be no regularisation de hors the rules. The same view was taken in Kishore (Dr.) v. State of Maharashtra and Union of India v. Bishaniber Dutt. The direction issued by the Services Tribunal for regularising the services of persons who had not been appointed on regular basis in accordance with the rules was set aside although the petitioner had been working regularly for a long time. 35. In Surinder Singh Jamwal (Dr.) v. State of J&K, it was held that ad hoc appointment does not give any right for regularisation as regularisation is governed by the statutory rules." (Emphasis supplied) XI. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandra Shekhar Azad Krishi Evam Prodyogiki Vishwavidyalaya v. United Trades Congress, reported in (2008) 2 SCC 552 in paragraphs 12 and 13, which reads as under : "12. A feeble attempt, however, was made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent 2 to state that he had been appointed against a permanent vacancy. In his written statement, he did not raise any such contention. It does not also appear from the records that any offer of appointment was given to him. It is inconceivable that an employee appointed on a regular basis would not be given an offer of appointment or shall not be placed on a scale of pay. We, therefore, have no hesitation in proceeding on the premise that respondent 2 was appointed on daily wages. The Industrial Court in passing the impugned award proceeded on the premise that respondent 2 had been working for more than 240 days continuously from the date of his engagement. It is now trite that the same by itself does not confer any right upon a workman to be regularised in service. Working for more than 240 days in a year was relevant only for the purpose of application of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 providing for conditions precedent to retrench the workmen. It does not speak of acquisition of a right by the workman to be regularised in service. 13. Working for more than 240 days in a year was relevant only for the purpose of application of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 providing for conditions precedent to retrench the workmen. It does not speak of acquisition of a right by the workman to be regularised in service. 13. In Executive Engineer, ZP Engg. Divn. v. Digambara Rao it was held : (SCC P. 269, Para 20) "20. It may not be out of place to mention that completion of 240 days of continuous service in a year may not by itself be a ground for directing an order of regularisation. It is also not the case of the respondents that they were appointed in accordance with the extant rules. No direction for regularisation of their services, therefore, could be issued." (See also Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad v. Anil Kumar Mishra and State of U.P. v. Neeraj Awasthi)." (Emphasis supplied) XII. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uttaranchal Forest Hospital Trust v. Dinesh Kumar, reported in (2008) 1 SCC 542 in paragraphs 6, 7, 8 & 9, which reads as under : "6. It is undisputed that the work of cleaning the hospital has been given to a contractor w.e.f. 17.8.1996. Materials were placed before the Labour Court to show that the workman was engaged for doing a part-time job and that he had worked fora few days in several months. The Labour Court itself on consideration of the documents and records produced noted as follows : "It is evident that the workman had worked in August 1996-16 days, July 1996 - 30 days, May 1996 - 30 days, April 1996 - 30 days, March 1996 - 29 days, February 1996 - 29 days, January 1996 - 31 days, December 1995 - 31 days, November 1995 - 20 days (full), October 1995 - 19 days (full), September 1995 - 25 days (full) @ Rs. 35 per day. In addition to this, in November 1995 - 3 days, October 1995 - 9 days @ Rs. 20 per day towards part-time work and in September 1995 - 3 days part-time @ Rs. 5 per day, had worked." 7. 35 per day. In addition to this, in November 1995 - 3 days, October 1995 - 9 days @ Rs. 20 per day towards part-time work and in September 1995 - 3 days part-time @ Rs. 5 per day, had worked." 7. The basic difference between a person who is engaged on a part-time basis for one hour or few hours and one who is engaged as a daily wager on regular basis has not been kept in view either by the Labour Court or by the High Court. The documents filed clearly establish that the claim of having worked more than 240 days is clearly belied. "8. The stand of the appellant that the respondent was called for work whenever work was available, as and when required and that he was not called for doing any work when the same was not available has been established. The Labour Court itself noted that the workman was engaged in work by others as he was working in the appellants' establishment for one hour or little more on some days. It is also seen from the documents produced before the Labour Court that whenever the respondent was working for full period of work he was being paid Rs. 35 per day and on other days when he worked for one hour he was getting Rs. 5. 9. In the aforesaid position, the inevitable conclusion is that the Labour Court and the High Court were not justified in directing the reinstatement with partial back wages." (Emphasis supplied) XIII. In view of these aforesaid decisions, even if the contractor's workers worked for more than 240 days, they cannot be treated as Workmen of the original employer-M/s. Bokaro Steel Plant. In all eventualities, once the contract is over or even if the contract is terminated for any reason whatsoever, all the workers of the contractor have no option but to go home with the contractor. The residues cannot remain with the Management-original employer. In the facts of the present case, it is the Bokaro Steel Plant's contractor who has to go with his annexures-workers. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition preferred by the respondent-Management. XIV. The residues cannot remain with the Management-original employer. In the facts of the present case, it is the Bokaro Steel Plant's contractor who has to go with his annexures-workers. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition preferred by the respondent-Management. XIV. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SAIL v. National Union Waterfront Workers, reported in (2001) 7 SCC 1 in paragraph 71, which reads as under : "71. By definition the term "contract labour" is a species of workman. A workman shall be so deemed when he is hired in or in connection with the work of an establishment by or through a contractor, with or without the knowledge of the principal employer. A workman may be hired : (1) in an establishment by the principal employer or by his agent with or without the knowledge of the principal employer; or (2) in connection with the work of an establishment by the principal employer through a contractor or by a contractor with or without the knowledge of the principal employer. Where a workman is hired in or in connection with the work of an establishment by the principal employer through a contractor, he merely acts as an agent so there will be master-and-servant relationship between the principal employer and the workman. But where a workman is hired in or in connection with the work of an establishment by a contractor, either because he has undertaken to produce a given result for the establishment or because he supplies workmen for any work of the establishment, a question might arise whether the contractor is a mere camouflage as in Hussainbhai case and in Indian Petrochemicals Corpn. case etc.; if the answer is in the affirmative, the workman will be in fact an employee of the principal employer; but if the answer is in the negative, the workman will be a contract labour." (Emphasis supplied) XV. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corpn., Greater Mumbai v. K.V. Shramik Sangh, reported in (2002) 4 SCC 609 in paragraph 28, which reads as under : "28. As laid down in the Constitution Bench judgment, absorption of contract labourers cannot be automatic and it is not for the Court to give such direction. As laid down in the Constitution Bench judgment, absorption of contract labourers cannot be automatic and it is not for the Court to give such direction. Appropriate course to be adopted is as indicated in para 125 of the said judgment in this regard. Thus having considered all aspects, we are of the view that the impugned judgment and order cannot be upheld." (Emphasis supplied) XVI. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 in paragraph 47, which reads as under : "47. When a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagement as a contractual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognised by the relevant rules or procedure, he is aware of the consequences of the appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in nature. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post when an appointment to the post could be made only by following a proper procedure for selection and in cases concerned, in consultation with the Public Service Commission. Therefore, the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be successfully advanced by temporary, contractual or casual employees. It cannot also be held that the State has held out any promise, while engaging these persons either to continue them where they are or to make them permanent. The State cannot constitutionally make such a promise. It is also obvious that the theory cannot be invoked to seek a positive relief of being made permanent in the post." (Emphasis supplied) XVII. In view of the aforesaid decisions also, this appellant cannot be treated as the Workmen of M/s. Bokaro Steel Plant, because they entered into the premises of Bokaro Steel Plant with the contractor and as the contract is over, contractor has to go home, likewise his workers have to go home with the contractor. 6. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncement, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition being W.P. (L) No. 1529 of 2004 vide judgment and order dated 23.4.2010, and while quashing and setting aside the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi in Reference Case No. 12 of 1994, dated 30.3.2003. We are in full agreement with the reasons given by the learned Single Judge. 7. Hence, there is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and the same is, hereby, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.