JUDGMENT : Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J. This writ petition is directed against an Award, dated July 11, 2011, passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata, on a reference by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India of an industrial dispute, inter alia, to the effect whether the action of the management of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, i.e., the respondent no. 3, in recruiting or including 28 casual workmen without being sponsored by the Employment Exchange and whether appointing Sri. Avik Pal were justified. 2. The Tribunal after considering the respective cases and the evidence adduced by the parties before it, inter alia, held that the workmen union had miserably failed to establish that the action of the management was unjust. It further held that the workmen union seeking the reference was not entitled to any relief. 3. The writ petitioner is a trade union representing the minority of the work force of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Marketing Division) (IOCL, for short) in the Eastern Region. 4. The case of the petitioner, inter alia, is that Barauni Terminal of IOCL initially employed 42 contract workers in its plant between years 1982 and 1988. When the plant was subsequently shifted, these workers lost their jobs and they were assured of absorption at the new unit at a suitable time. The new terminal was commissioned on January 28, 1993 with an agreement between the management of the IOCL and the Indian Oil Employees' Union (IOEU, for short) that manpower would be deployed within three to six months. IOCL sent requisition to the relevant Employment Exchange for sponsoring candidates to recruit workmen on casual basis for the new terminal. A list of 343 candidates was sent to IOCL Eastern Region (Kolkata) including the names of some of the 42 contract labourers who were initially appointed at the Barauni Plant. 5. Since, the petitioner alleges, IOEU started a massive demonstration causing complete disruption of work, IOCL raised an industrial dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Patna. Subsequently, an agreement was entered into between IOCL and IOEU to the effect of recruiting additional manpower to be assessed as per the prevailing norms of IOCL. The petitioner wants to interpret words "prevailing norms" as meaning considering only the names of the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange. 6. Subsequently, an agreement was entered into between IOCL and IOEU to the effect of recruiting additional manpower to be assessed as per the prevailing norms of IOCL. The petitioner wants to interpret words "prevailing norms" as meaning considering only the names of the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange. 6. Subsequently, the management of IOCL had written that because of law and order situation they would not be allowed to recruit workers from candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange. 7. It is the further case of the petitioner that in a meeting held at Jaipur on July 18/19, 1994, the management of IOCL assured IOEU that the manpower recruitment would be made in the same line as proposed by the latter pursuant to which IOCL agreed to engage 26 workers as proposed by IOEU initially on contract which would be subsequently regularized. On December 22, 1994 contracts were awarded by IOCL in favour of the 26 workers details of whom were furnished from the Kolkata office to the Head Office of Mumbai on January 29, 1996 for approval of their engagement. On March 2, 1996, a memorandum of understanding was entered into by and between the management and IOEU for empanelment of 26 workers at the Barauni Terminal. 8. The petitioner alleges that by a communication, dated March 26, 1996, the head Office at Mumbai directed the Kolkata office to identify the officers responsible for engaging 26 workers in violation of the procedure laid down for recruitment. The memo, dated December 28, 1984 issued by the management of IOCL is a proof that recruitment through Employment Exchange is the laid down procedure of IOCL. 9. The petitioner states that the letter dated April 29, 1998 written by the management of IOCL to IOEU will clearly show that the management had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with IOEU for empanelment of 26 purported contract labours in place of casual workers. 10. Because of these alleged illegalities as well as resorting to unfair labour practice a strike notice was issued on December 22, 19988. Subsequently, the management of IOCL referred the dispute to the Regional Labour Commissioner, Kolkata. On January 5, 1999, IOCL had written to the Additional Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, that it had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on March 2, 1996 to impanel the 26 workers to be recruited by May, 31, 1996. Subsequently, the management of IOCL referred the dispute to the Regional Labour Commissioner, Kolkata. On January 5, 1999, IOCL had written to the Additional Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, that it had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on March 2, 1996 to impanel the 26 workers to be recruited by May, 31, 1996. The petitioner has challenged the content of the letter as contrary to the stand taken by IOCL earlier. 11. The conciliation proceeding having ended in a failure, the Central Government referred the dispute to the concerned Tribunal and the reference was dismissed by the Tribunal as mentioned above. 12. The writ petition has been contested by IOCL by filing an affidavit where the material allegations in the writ petition have been denied. The respondent no. 3 has denied the contention of the petitioner that it represented about 40 per cent of the work force of the IOCL. On the contrary, it has been stated that it is not a recognized union. The respondent no. 3 has disputed the interpretation of the words "prevailing norms" as made by the petitioner and states that this expression can only refer to the norms in the guidelines relating to the number of casual workmen to be engaged. Assurance, if any, was given to IOEU only and the procedure actually followed in engaging the casual labourers in question was consulted to by IOEU. The respondent no. 3 has laid stress on the admission of the petitioner in evidence that there was no absolute bar to engaging casual labourer without being sponsored by the Employment Exchange, but that was treated as the rule. 13. It has been the specific case of IOCL that it has no recruitment rules for the engagement of casual labourers and the internal guideline has no force of law. IOCL has specifically denied that there had been any violation of any norm or guideline or infringement of any policy or resorting to any unfair labour practice. IOCL could not take recourse to Employment Exchange in respect of employment of 26 casual labourers as clarified in annexure P2 to the writ petition. Demonstrations at the terminal of IOCL caused work stoppage resulting in widespread disruption of its work. These circumstances fully justified the steps taken by the IOCL in engaging casual labourers in question in the manner in which it was done. Demonstrations at the terminal of IOCL caused work stoppage resulting in widespread disruption of its work. These circumstances fully justified the steps taken by the IOCL in engaging casual labourers in question in the manner in which it was done. This was ratified and accepted by the higher officers of IOCL. The allegation that IOCL has sponsored IOEU or the 42 contract labours have no right to employment under IOCL has been denied. The respondent no. 3 has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 14. The added respondent nos. 5 to 29 to this writ petition has also filed an affidavit-in-opposition. They have raised the issue relating to maintainability of the writ petition. Their chief contention is that one of them has the due qualifications to be appointed as regular employee of IOCL. When IOCL sought to carry on its work by requisitioning labour from the Employment Exchange, the latter forwarded a list of 343 candidates which was incomplete. The Barauni Terminal unit could not afford to let the unit remain idle. Therefore, IOCL based on a report given by a fact finding committee approved the impanelment of 28 workers with the concurrence of the head quarters. Thus the respondent no. 3 in the public interest entered into an agreement with the employees' union which was a Memorandum of Understanding whereby those who had worked at Barauni and were qualified to be employees of the respondent no. 3 were recruited as casual labourers on certain terms. 15. The appropriate authority of IOCL appointed the added respondents against vacant posts and after verifying their qualifications and particulars and ultimately, 26 casual workers were selected. 16. The added respondents have referred to and relied on the various orders passed by the Patna High Court in the case of Nawal Kishore Singh and Others v. Union of India and Others, (Case no. 11651 of 2012). Twenty-six casual labourers moved a writ petition before the Patna High Court with a prayer for regularization or absorption in the regular establishment of the respondent no. 3. The High Court at Patna recorded the submission made before it by the IOCL that in the event the case of 26 casual labourers fell within the scope provided in the case of Uma Devi, they can put forth their claim for regularization. 3. The High Court at Patna recorded the submission made before it by the IOCL that in the event the case of 26 casual labourers fell within the scope provided in the case of Uma Devi, they can put forth their claim for regularization. It was further recorded that the Court was inclined to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to convince the management that their case of regularization would be covered under Paragraph 20 of the Uma Devi's case. 17. It is a grievance of the added respondents that despite communication of the order of the Patna High Court, IOCL did not decide the matter because of the pendency of a writ petition in this Court since 2012. They are aggrieved that despite being duly qualified they have not yet been regularized. 18. So far as the present dispute is concerned, the added respondents claim that they had no knowledge of the litigation or even the Award by the concerned Tribunal in Kolkata. After getting copies of the writ petition, the added respondents found that each one of them was referred to in the Award by name but they were not made parties to the writ petition nor before the Tribunal. 19. The added respondents have asserted that the basis of the dispute raised before the Tribunal was fatally flawed and the writ petitioner deliberately suppressed that the recruitment was not made in an ad hoc manner. After a long drawn process an industrial settlement was entered into between the employer and the relevant recognized trade union in Bihar which was given effect to partiality in Bihar. These added respondents have also disputed the claim of the petitioner union to be representing 40 per cent of the work force of the respondent no. 3 or its presence in Bihar. The petitioner union had definitely misled the Tribunal, this Court as also the respondent no. 1 by claiming as if the workmen of IOCL are controlled or represented by the petitioner union when an industrial settlement was entered into between the respondent no. 3 and IOEU. 20. The added respondents have denied the alleged assurance to absorb 48 workers of the contractors when the new unit would be commissioned. There was no statutory rule that candidates would have to be sponsored by the Employment Exchange alone. 3 and IOEU. 20. The added respondents have denied the alleged assurance to absorb 48 workers of the contractors when the new unit would be commissioned. There was no statutory rule that candidates would have to be sponsored by the Employment Exchange alone. The guideline, dated December 28, 1984, had or has no statutory force and is not a binding one. The order of the Patna High Court has reached finality and it is not open to anyone to challenge the correctness of that finding. The relevant industrial settlement was given effect to by appointing them on November 19, 1998. The question of IOCL's disowning its responsibility in the matter of appointing the added respondents does not arise as it had considered itself bound by the industrial settlement. 21. The added respondents have volleyed the allegation back to the petitioner union by alleging that it had adopted unfair labour practice and the strike was wholly illegal. The petitioner wanted to be sponsored as the only trade union with absolute right of patronage. It has been asserted that the management of the respondent no. 3 had not taken contrary stands. According to them, the respondent no. 3 issued a letter dated April 29, 1998, when its superior officers decided to approve the appointments. The writ petitioner has not been able to produce any recruitment rules of appointment. The respondent no. 3 has not given a go by to its own recruitment rule or rules of appointment. They also denied that the respondent no. 3 had taken any illegal action in giving effect to a valid industrial settlement. The added respondents also have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 22. The Tribunal after considering the respective cases and recording the submissions of the learned Advocates came to a finding that none of the parties came forward to state that these 28 workers were appointed by IOCL against any regular vacancy with any prescribed scale of pay. Although the sponsoring union had repeatedly claimed that recruitment of the casual workers was to be done by following the recruitment rules and regulations of the corporation, such rules and regulations had not been produced before the Tribunal. The Tribunal had also considered the aspect of prejudice suffered by the union. Although the sponsoring union had repeatedly claimed that recruitment of the casual workers was to be done by following the recruitment rules and regulations of the corporation, such rules and regulations had not been produced before the Tribunal. The Tribunal had also considered the aspect of prejudice suffered by the union. According to it, a recruitment can be challenged by union either on the ground that it was made by way of superseding a deserving candidate or it had been done by violating the prescribed procedure for such recruitment. Only in respect of the appointment of a handicapped person namely Avik Pal, the sponsoring union challenged it on the ground that it was done by ignoring the prescribed eligibility of the other candidates for such handicapped persons appointed. The Tribunal observed that it was difficult to understand how selection of a person to a solitary post can be said to be a deprivation of other contesting candidates since the selection lies in the hand of the employer. It is not a case of the union that the appointment of 28 persons whose cancellation they sought for, was done by ignoring the candidature of some more eligible or deserving candidates. No issue of deprivation has been raised by the union and the dispute had been raised for no benefit of the workmen. Since the union failed to provide any recruitment rule or procedure followed by IOCL regarding appointment or engagement of a casual worker, the validity of the allegation whether the management corporation had acted arbitrarily cannot be easily assessed. 23. The Tribunal further observed that the workmen union had not stated for whose causes the union wanted the recruitment of 26 casual workers to be cancelled and for whose benefit the dispute was raised. According to the Tribunal the present dispute might be said to have been raised in an unorganized manner since the management had claimed that engagement of 26 workers was done after consultation with the IOEU which is representing the majority of the work force of the corporation and is a recognized union. Therefore, the recruitment could not be said to be arbitrary. The Tribunal has distinguished the decision in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Uma Devi (3), reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 , on the ground that the prayer for regularization is not the subject matter of present dispute. Therefore, the recruitment could not be said to be arbitrary. The Tribunal has distinguished the decision in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Uma Devi (3), reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 , on the ground that the prayer for regularization is not the subject matter of present dispute. On the contrary, the workmen union itself has raised the dispute for cancellation of engagement of 26 casual workers who are alleged not to have been engaged following the proper procedure in this respect. It has been repeatedly observed by the Tribunal that although the union had said so many things in its written statement of claim but why it raised the present industrial dispute remained unexplained except mentioning that it was not done in accordance with the procedure for recruitment of casual workers, without producing the prescribed procedure for such recruitment. 24. Challenging the same Award Mr. Majumdar, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, submitted that the IOCL was bound by its own laid down procedure in the matter of recruitment and a positive case of unfair labour practice as enumerated in the 5th schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act was made out by the union. According to him, the material evidence on record would show that the procedure for engagement of casual labourer was before the Tribunal. The guidelines for employment of casual workers were laid down on December 28, 1984 and the Tribunal had passed an Award by completely overlooking the same. Every engagement need not be guided by statutory rules and regulations. But IOCL could not go against their own prescribed guideline. Mr. Majumdar had stuck to the laid down policy or the guideline of the IOCL in respect of the engagement of casual workers and submitted that entering into a settlement with the recognized union cannot justify the IOCL's deviation from the same. Even if the Employment Exchange had failed to perform its duties by sponsoring names of the candidates with full particulars that did not entitle IOCL to make an arrangement with the recognized union to deviate from the guideline when force and coercion adopted by the recognized union is an admitted position. 25. Mr. Majumdar further argued that even a minority union has a right to raise an industrial dispute. 25. Mr. Majumdar further argued that even a minority union has a right to raise an industrial dispute. Settlement of recruitment of casual workers with the recognized union shows favouritism to that union and IOEU succeeded in prevailing over the management to cause backdoor entry to be made. He has referred to the writ petition filed in the Patna High Court by the casual workers seeking regularization and the High Court had allowed them to persuade the management in support of their claim in the light of Paragraph 53 of Uma Devi's case. 26. The petitioner submits that the Award shows a total non-application of mind in holding that the sponsoring union had no cause of action to be prejudiced by reason of recruitment of 26 casual workers through settlement with IOEU and in deviation of the laid down policy or guideline of IOCL. So far as the recruitment of the handicapped son of an ex-employee is concerned, the petitioner submitted that the locus standi as applicable in a writ petition is not the same in an industrial adjudication. A major part of the petitioner's submission is the failure on the part of the Tribunal to consider the evidence. 27. The principal issue involved in the case thus is whether IOCL in recruiting 26 casual workers had violated its own guidelines or the laid down policy. The Tribunal had clearly observed that no such guideline or procedure had been placed before it from which it could be ascertained whether in the matter of recruitment the management of the corporation violated its own norms. 28. The repeated emphasis by the petitioner union on the violation of the policy of recruitment by IOCL required the union to place the same before the Court. The only reference to any such guideline for employment of casual workers was an inter-office Memo dated December 28, 1984 issued by the General Manager (Personnel) of IOCL to the General Managers of different regions of the said company. Mr. Majumdar specifically referred to this Memo as the guideline for employment of casual workers to be followed by IOCL. 29. The said Memo, inter alia, says that the engagement of casual labourers on an ad hoc basis should have been frozen on August 31, 1983. Mr. Majumdar specifically referred to this Memo as the guideline for employment of casual workers to be followed by IOCL. 29. The said Memo, inter alia, says that the engagement of casual labourers on an ad hoc basis should have been frozen on August 31, 1983. If not done it should be ensured that such engagement was stopped forthwith and a list of such casual labourers for all locations should be kept at the regional office. After that date no casual should be employed on an ad hoc basis. Any casual labourer required to be engaged in future should be from amongst the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange only and normally no casual labour should be engaged through contractors. Clause 7 of the said Office Memo stated that while preparing the panel of casuals through Employment Exchange it should be ensured that the casual labourer possesses minimum job requirement such as age, qualification, physical fitness, etc., prescribed for that particular job. The issue of reference to the concerned Tribunal was also the same, viz., whether the action of the management of the IOCL in recruiting 26 casual workmen without being sponsored by the Employment Exchange was justified. 30. IOCL has given sufficient reasons for not being able to recruit the casual workers from the Employment Exchange. It is not the case that IOCL did not send any requisition to the Employment Exchange for sponsoring names. They did it. But no satisfactory or complete list was received from it, resulting in the failure on the part of the management to achieve the manning of the refinery. This in turn had led to the workmen starting an agitation which disrupted the supply of goods from the terminal and also threatened peace and security causing loss to IOCL. The union had also admitted it in its statement of claim before the Tribunal. In paragraph 6, it has been stated in the statement of claim that the employment officer failed to sponsor any name due to various disputes and financial irregularities within the Employment Exchange which resulted in the arrest of the Employment Officer and finally a list of 343 candidates was furnished to IOCL. In protest to the failure on the part of the management to provide the requisite manpower at the new terminal the workers resorted to the agitation from October 22, 1993 including stoppage of work from November 6, 1993. In protest to the failure on the part of the management to provide the requisite manpower at the new terminal the workers resorted to the agitation from October 22, 1993 including stoppage of work from November 6, 1993. The same was also the case of the IOCL in its written statement before the Tribunal with the added information that the list furnished by the Employment Directorate was an incomplete one which did not mention the age and qualification of the candidates and it could not, therefore, be acted upon. In the rejoinder by the applicant union before the Tribunal, the statement has not been denied. 31. Thus, it is not a case that the inter-office Memo, dated December 28, 1984, was deliberately deviated from by the IOCL. It must be held that when IOCL sent requisition to the Employment Exchange for sponsoring names they most certainly acted in terms of the said office Memo. But, there are always situations and circumstances all of which cannot be anticipated in advance. It is also equally true that situations beyond the control of an authority may compel to take recourse to a certain course of action, both out of compulsion and also in the larger interest for the effective operation of its activities. 32. It has been the case of the petitioner although that the IOCL had engaged 26 casual workers in violation of its own laid down rules and procedure which was binding on them. Their own evidence, however, say something slightly otherwise. That the alleged rules regarding engagement of casual labourers has not been filed before the Tribunal had been fairly admitted by WW1, Mr. Narayanan. He had also admitted in examination-in-chief that a requisition was forwarded to the Employment Exchange by the management of IOCL and that none from the list submitted by the Directorate of Employment, Patna had been appointed by the management on the ground of unavailability of age and qualification particulars as intimated to them by the management. While deposing in favour of the union claiming the corporation to follow the rules and procedure in the matter of engagement and for removal of the persons so appointed, he himself admitted in cross-examination that there was no absolute bar to the engagement of casual labourer without the names being forwarded by the Employment Exchange but that was treated to be the law. 33. If Mr. 33. If Mr. Majumdar submits that the concerned inter-office Memo binds the management of IOCL, the statement made by their own witness binds them equally, if not with a greater degree of commitment to a stand. The respondent no. 3 has questioned the validity of the said office Memo as a binding document. But the statement of WW1 definitely operates as an admission binding the petitioner union. That the inter office Memo is not a binding document has been fairly admitted by their witness when he says that there was not absolute bar to the engagement of casual labourer without names being forwarded by the Employment Exchange. 34. The next part of the statement of PW 1 is still more suggestive about the non-mandatory nature of the document when he said that the office Memo was only treated to be the law. This unmistakably evinced that what was sought to be projected as binding upon the IOCL was no more than being taken by the union to be the law. 35. A thing which is treated as law is very different from its being law. On the contrary if something per se is not a law the question of treating it as the law arises only then. This very stand clearly belies the case of the petitioner that the document dated December 28, 1984 operates as an imperative obligation on the part of the respondent to follow the same as a non-relaxable rule of law. Even if Mr. Narayanan had denied a suggestion put to him in cross-examination to the effect that it was not a fact that there was no rule at all regarding engagement of casual workers, no such rule could be produced by the union. But, if the deposition is read carefully it will instantaneously bring out that the witness was not treating the said document to be a binding rule. 36. Otherwise why must he depose that there was no absolute bar in engaging casual labourers without the sponsoring of candidates from the Employment Exchange ? If the Memo, dated December 28, 1984, had all the elements of a binding rule, the bar would have been absolute and under normal circumstances non-relaxable. 37. 36. Otherwise why must he depose that there was no absolute bar in engaging casual labourers without the sponsoring of candidates from the Employment Exchange ? If the Memo, dated December 28, 1984, had all the elements of a binding rule, the bar would have been absolute and under normal circumstances non-relaxable. 37. It appears that the document so strenuously relied on by the petitioner stipulates in Clause 4 that normally no casual labourer should be engaged through the contractors or on ad hoc basis and any casuals required to be engaged in future should be from amongst the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange as provided in Clause 2 of the said Memo. Two words in this document are important viz., 'normally' and 'should be'. Even if the most that can be conceded is conceded in fabour of the petitioner, it does not create a document binding upon the authorities under all circumstances regardless of the prevailing circumstantial situation. That will be stretching things not only too far but to an unintended extent. The use of the word 'normally' presupposes and is relatable to a normal situation i.e., when a party or a person acts under normal circumstances and what is expected of them when such normal condition prevails. 38. If the management of the IOCL had straight away recruited 26 persons circumventing the Employment Exchange there might have been an occasion for a complaint. The management did not do so. They approached the Employment Exchange and there was already considerable delay due to various reasons not ascribable to IOCL in sending the requisition. Again, the information and data about the sponsored candidates was quite incomplete. The IOCL was failing in achieving the desired manpower level at the refinery. The resultant situation admittedly was going out of the hand of the management, disrupting the supply of goods from the terminal and bringing the entire situation to the brink of a law and order crisis. In the meantime, the IOEU raised its demand and the IOCL had to take a decision to employ the manpower through the contractors. Thus, the situation was not normal because of continuous agitation and stoppage of work and the inability of the Employment Exchange to provide complete list of workmen to be appointed as casual labourers. 39. In the meantime, the IOEU raised its demand and the IOCL had to take a decision to employ the manpower through the contractors. Thus, the situation was not normal because of continuous agitation and stoppage of work and the inability of the Employment Exchange to provide complete list of workmen to be appointed as casual labourers. 39. Clause (2) of the concerned Inter-Office Memo provided that in future casuals 'should be' engaged from amongst the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange only. There is a discernable difference between 'shall' and 'should'. In old English 'should' was used as a past form of 'shall' which in modern English has been substituted by "would". Here obviously the word was not used in that sense as the entire sentence contemplated a course of action to be taken in future. The lexical meaning of the word 'should' does not only fix an obligation but also the correctness of a situation. It is also used to indicate what is probable (Reference : Concise Oxford English Dictionary, OUP 2004). It obviously follows from it that under normal and possible circumstances it will be desirable and proper to employ casual workers from amongst list of candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange. 40. Over and above the admission by Mr. Narayanan that the concerned document did not create any absolute bar, the language and the manner in which the stipulation had been contained in the concerned Inter Office Memo also suggests that it did not operate as something completely estopping the management of the corporation from deviating from what was stated to be the practice to be followed and what was expressed to a desirable and an appropriate course of action in normal situation. 41. Mr. Chowdhury has argued that what has been alleged to be an unfair labour practice was introduced in High Court. It was not a case made out before the Tribunal. Even though the statement of claim filed by the union had accused the IOCL of following unfair labour practice there was no evidence adduced to that effect from their side. Moreover, it must be appreciated that not approaching the Employment Exchange could not be classed as an unfair labour practice. It was not a case made out before the Tribunal. Even though the statement of claim filed by the union had accused the IOCL of following unfair labour practice there was no evidence adduced to that effect from their side. Moreover, it must be appreciated that not approaching the Employment Exchange could not be classed as an unfair labour practice. The impugned action on the part of the management of the corporation does not satisfy any of the instances of unfair labour practice as enumerated in Schedule V to the Industrial Disputes Act, particularly in view of the circumstances under which the management had to take a decision deviating from the procedure under normal circumstances to be resorted to. 42. It is also a point to be noted that so far as the employment of Avik Pal is concerned there has not been any rule produced by the union to substantiate their case of violating the rules in the appointment of the handicapped son of an ex-employee. PW. 1 has specifically admitted that he had not filed any rule regarding appointment of the handicapped persons. Neither did he state that there existed any rule about the engagement of a handicapped candidate in violation of which Sri Avik Pal had been appointed. There is also no evidence about the preferential qualification of the other candidate sponsored by the union. 43. The Tribunal while answering the reference in the negative rightly posed the question about the prejudice of the union in raising the dispute. It had rightly addressed the issue about how selection of a person to a solitary post can be assessed as a deprivation of other contesting candidates when the union could not produce any recruitment rules with regard to the handicapped persons. Equally important is the observation made by the Tribunal about why the union wanted cancellation of appointment of these labourers when it is not the case of the union that better candidates have been left out or by superseding any such person, listed or empanelled for such engagement, any appointment has been made. Ultimately, it has to be reckoned that the union could not be benefited by the dispute so raised. The submission of Mr. Majumdar could not rebut it. 44. Ultimately, it has to be reckoned that the union could not be benefited by the dispute so raised. The submission of Mr. Majumdar could not rebut it. 44. While disposing of this writ petition, the judgment and order passed by the Patna High Court, as annexed to the affidavit of the added respondents as Annexure - R3, has to be considered. There the petitioners were the 26 casual workers engaged by the IOCL and they were seeking regularization in their service. The Patna High Court granted an opportunity to the petitioners to convince the management that their cases would be covered by para 53 of Uma Devi's case. 45. After the judgment of the Patna High Court it has become all the more difficult for the present petitioner to argue that the employment had not been in terms of the recruitment policy laid down by the Corporation itself. Seen as an absolute legal proposition, it may not be very relevant whether the present petitioner was a party to that proceeding but the manner in which their case had been disposed of militates against the case of the present petitioner that the engagement of the added respondents was the result of any unfair labour practice by the management of the IOCL. I quite agree with the submission of the added respondents that the process of raising the dispute has the effect of thwarting any endeavor on the part of the IOCL to decide the fate of the added respondents. 46. I find no infirmity in the Award impugned and equally no merit in the writ petition. The contentions of the petitioners must fail. 47. The writ petition is dismissed. 48. There shall be no order as to costs. 49. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all requisite formalities.