JUDGMENT : Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. 1. The petitioner is a registered Trade Union agitating a cause of nine employees working with the respondent wherein their claims for regularization has been denied by the Tribunal by way of impugned award dated 18.09.2007 passed in ID Case No. 116 of 2002 as notified on 13.10.2007 and published in the Gazette on 01.11.2007. Before going into the vitalities of the award, certain legal backdrop under which the case has reached to this stage is necessarily required to be discussed. 2. There is no controversy inter se between the parties that prior to the induction of the petitioners into the services there was a standing order in operation w.e.f. 15.07.1962 which dealt with the conditions of the workmen including all the “Contingent Employees.” These standing orders were for contingent employees of the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation. These standing orders, which were in existence since 15.07.1962, had not dealt with the qualification of the employees which they were suppose to have at the time of induction. The qualification which has been prescribed was under Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (Recruitment and Promotion) Regulations 1980 and connected instructions. This regulation came into the enforcement w.e.f. 12.10.1979. According to the R & P Regulation of 1980 it deals with the qualification of Junior Mali in its clause 3.5 sub-clause 7 which reads as under:- “It is also submitted that minimum educational qualification for class 4 post has been increased from 8th to 10th except for Junior Mali and Junior Sanitary Cleaner for which the qualification is literate with 5 years experience in line.” 3. According to the qualification prescribed for induction of Mali Grade-3, it provided that he should be literate with 5 year’s experience. Meaning thereby by this qualification prescribed predominantly it was an experience only which was the parameter for induction, as specific educational qualification is not prescribed is simply says “literate.” The other set of employees which are in the controversy in the question, their qualification has been specified under clause 3.15.1 clause 12. 4. The qualification for guards as enforced by the Rules of 1980, is that a candidate should have class 8th pass certificate and apart from it, the physical qualification as enshrined therein importantly does not provide any experience. 5. 4. The qualification for guards as enforced by the Rules of 1980, is that a candidate should have class 8th pass certificate and apart from it, the physical qualification as enshrined therein importantly does not provide any experience. 5. The petitioners who are representing the cause of namely, Sri Ram, Keshwanand Nautiyal, Nand Kishore, Ram Milan, Narendra Kumar, Soban Singh, Mahadeo, Munna and Sri Ram Swaroop. Mr. Sri Ram was inducted as Mali on 01.07.1982, Keshwanand was inducted as Mali 01.10.1981, Nand Kishore was inducted as Mali 01.12.1987, Ram Milan was inducted as Mali 01.12.1983, Mr. Narendra Kumar was inducted as Guard on 01.10.1985, Soban Singh was inducted as Mali 01.05.1987, Mahadev was inducted as Guard on 01.04.1984, Munna was inducted as Guard on 01.01.1987 and Sri Ram Swaroop was inducted as Guard on 01.10.1984. On a conjoint date of appointment of all the aforesaid persons it shows that they were appointed in between 01.10.1981 to 01.10.1987. 6. The issue which crops up and is a question of debate as to what would be the qualification which they were supposed to have to make them eligible to be considered for regularization. Since they have already put in sufficient number of years of service and they were not being considered for regularization by the respondent the issue traveled to Allahabad High Court by way of Writ Petition No. 23550 of 1987. The Allahabad High Court in its judgment rendered on 20.12.1995 has observed as under:- “26. The case of State of Haryana and Others vs. Piara Singh and Others, proceeded on the basis that the scheme was formulated by the Government of Punjab laying down the conditions for regularization. In the said case, it was observed that the proper course would be that each state prepares a scheme if one is not already evolved for regularisation. It was further observed that so far as the work charge employees and casual labours are concerned, offer must be made to regularise them as far as possible and as early as possible subject to their fulfilling the qualifications, if any, prescribed for the post and subject also to the availability of work. It was further observed that so far as the work charge employees and casual labours are concerned, offer must be made to regularise them as far as possible and as early as possible subject to their fulfilling the qualifications, if any, prescribed for the post and subject also to the availability of work. The observations made in the said judgment in paragraph 49, as is relevant for our present purpose is reproduced below: “49...........If a casual labourer is continued for a fairly long spell-say two or three years – a presumption may arise that there is a regular need for his services. In such a situation, it becomes obligatory for the concerned authority to examine the feasibility of his regularization. While doing so, the authorities ought to adopt a positive approach coupled with an empathy for the person. As has been repeatedly stressed by this court, security of tenure is necessary for an employee to give his best to the job. In this behalf, we do commend the orders of the Government of Haryana (contained in its letter dated 6.4.1990 referred to hereinbefore) both in relation to work-charged employees as well as casual labour.” 27. Viewing from that point of view, in the present case, a scheme has already been framed in which no fault can be discovered. 28. In that view of the matter, the petitioners are not entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition though, however, the respondents shall take steps within the ambit of the Standing Order read with the office order referred to above in the light of the observation made in the case of Piara Singh (supra).” 7. In para 28 it was observed by the learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court that respondents shall take steps within the ambit of Standing Orders read with the office orders referred above in the light of the observation made in State of Haryana vs. Piara Singh, it would decide the claim for grant of regular status in the service. This was based on statement made by Oil and Natural Gas Corporation. 8. This observations made that they would be considered for regularization in accordance with specific terms as per Standing Orders. This was based on statement made by Oil and Natural Gas Corporation. 8. This observations made that they would be considered for regularization in accordance with specific terms as per Standing Orders. At this juncture, the propriety of their nature of appointment, the period of service and their qualification issues stand closed because the chapter of the regularization was thrown in the domain of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation, to be considered as per specified terms of standing orders, in accordance with the statement. 9. This order was put to challenge in Special Appeal. The Special Appeal which was dismissed and against both the orders a SLP was preferred being SLP No. 12571 of 1991. Before the Hon’ble Apex Court yet again the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation through their counsel made almost an identical statement as given before the learned Single Judge. But, practically, as a matter of fact by the time the Apex Court decided the matter vide its judgment dated 14.02.2000. The petitioners have already put in more than two decades of service with the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation. 10. When the contingent workman realized that despite of their being consistent direction by the court to consider their issue of regularization in accordance with the Standing Orders and in accordance with the statement recorded before the court was not being considered and simultaneously, they were proceeding to issue call letters fixing dates for interview on 10.06.2001 for making fresh recruitments. The necessity arose for them to seek for a reference under Industrial Disputes Act, for redressal of grievance as against non regularization. The conciliation proceedings were held on 14.06.2002 and a Reference was made before the Labour Court. Unfortunately, may it be a human error or lack of prudence, which is always variable from man to man the issue of unfair labour practice which itself is contained in the reference order already was not made as one of the prime issue to be considered. Unfortunately, may it be a human error or lack of prudence, which is always variable from man to man the issue of unfair labour practice which itself is contained in the reference order already was not made as one of the prime issue to be considered. Because looking to the conduct of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation having appointed the nine contingent workmen since 1981 till 1987 and keeping their destiny at bay is absolutely arbitrary and this Court feels that this in itself will amount to an unfair labour practice because an employee who is inducted into the services has an expectation to be given a permanent status and that too when they have worked for more than two decades. 11. The argument of the counsel for the respondent is that the case of the petitioners was considered and they were not found suitable in accordance with the Standing Orders as issued in 1997. With all profound respect and diligence this Court feels that the eligibility qualification of a incumbent has to be considered as to be the qualification which a person is having at the time when he is inducted into the services, because otherwise it will be too hypothetical weapon given to the respondent, if they are permitted to apply the qualification prescribed at a subsequent stage cannot be considered as to be the basis for granting them a regular status. The reason being granting of a regular status is to be reckoned by continuous service which a person has rendered in the capacity of not being a regular incumbent. Thus, any subsequent alterations or enhancement in the qualification will not be applicable to the workmen whom the petitioner is representing particular the rules and regulations as enforced w.e.f. 1997. 12. The another limb of argument as canvassed by Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal is that at the induction level itself the petitioners were not qualified according to the Standing Orders of 15.07.1962. He cannot be permitted to take the said argument at this stage. The reason being an organization and that to an organization which has been nomenclature as to be a ‘Navratna Company’ of a country. Rakesh Thapliyal is that at the induction level itself the petitioners were not qualified according to the Standing Orders of 15.07.1962. He cannot be permitted to take the said argument at this stage. The reason being an organization and that to an organization which has been nomenclature as to be a ‘Navratna Company’ of a country. It would be deemed that when the appointments were between 1981 to 1987 they were conscious of the qualifications as enforced by the Standing Orders on 15.07.1962 and if they have granted an appointment and that appointment has persisted till date now for almost over 20 years that it would be deemed that at the time when they were appointed they were having qualification because the respondent cannot take the advantage of their own wrong by hiring an employee after taking their services for such a long period and living them off. 13. In that view of the matter, this Court feels that since the country being a welfare state this action of the respondent of keeping the employees and their destiny at still since 1981-1987 till date this in itself will amount to be an unfair labour practice because by now they have become non-suited for any other employment. Couple with the fact that we have to socially also take into consideration that these persons owe their family liabilities they have to match up a domestic need of the family members and hence they ought to be provided with a confidence that would be permanently working in an organization in which they have rendered their services for last more than twenty years. This issue has already been dealt by the Apex Court in one of the recent judgment rendered on 17.04.2015 in a case reported in 2015 (6) SCC 494 , Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited vs. Petroleum Coal Labour Union and Others, the analogy as propounded by the said judgment in principle would be applicable in the instant case too and thus this Court feels that member of the petitioners trade union, whose names have been referred above since they fulfill the criteria of regularization, having worked for more than 240 days in calendar year are eligible to be regularized. The regularization clause with the respondent tried to press upon so far it relates to the Malis there are catena of judgments including the judgment of State of Haryana vs. Piara Singh which has lays down that if a person has put in a considerable long period of service it would be deemed that he has simultaneously gathered an experience to work and particularly in the light of present circumstances when the respondent by their own conduct have waved of the experience clause when they have inducted the Malis. 14. Apart from it, this Court feels that logically the nature of work which the Mali have to discharge is not such a technical work where experience plays any pivotal role in appointment what has been observed above this Court feels that the judgment rendered by the Labour Court is absolutely untenable in the eyes of law and against constitutional welfare of being a welfare state and hence it is quashed and the order passed earlier which is being sought to be recalled, is affirmed. Respondents are directed to regularize services of members of petitioners’ trade union. The writ petition is allowed.