JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. Since, common questions of facts, and, law are involved in both the aforestated petitions, hence, both are decided, under, a common judgment. 2. The writ petitioners claim, that, directions be issued to the respondents, for, regularizing their service, in the capacity, in which they are/were rendering work, under, their employers/respondents herein. The writ petitioners contend, that, the policy for regularization, respectively borne in Annexure P-2 of 2004, and, in Annexure P-6, be quashed, and, set aside, (a) as, the afore policies impose, an, embargo, upon, daily wagers to derive, the, benefit of regularization, and, also further pray, that, the respondents be directed, to, give them, the, benefit of regularization in service, from, the date of their initial engagement by the respondents herein. A further prayer is made that the afore benefit be given, to, them, from, the year 2004. 3. The respondents contested, the, granting of the, afore relief to the petitioners, and, also made a vehement contention in their reply, that, the benefit of regularization in service meted by them, vis-a-vis, the purported juniors to the writ petitioners, enumerated in Annexures P-3, and, in P-4, being not amenable for being quashed, and, set aside, (a) given the purported juniors to the writ petitioners, rather satiating all the guidelines encapsulated, in, the afore relevant policy(ies), whereas, the writ petitioners, hence, failing to satiate, the, relevant conditions borne, in, the guidelines/policy(ies), issued from time, to, time. 4. The petitioners' claim, for, relief qua quashing of Annexure P-2, warrants its being straightway rejected (a) as Annexure P-2 appertains to a policy framed, on 21.3.2001, hence, stood replaced, by, the subsequent extant in vogue policy, borne in Annexure P-5, issued on 11.5.2012. 4. The petitioners' claim, for, relief qua quashing of Annexure P-2, warrants its being straightway rejected (a) as Annexure P-2 appertains to a policy framed, on 21.3.2001, hence, stood replaced, by, the subsequent extant in vogue policy, borne in Annexure P-5, issued on 11.5.2012. (b) Also, the, further reason qua the petitioners claim, for, benefit of regularization in service, from, 2004, being rather not bestow able upon them, is also rejected, conspicuously given rather the afore claim enjoining satiation being evidently meted, vis-a-vis, the imperative condition No.(i) borne therein, which stand extracted hereinafter:- “(i) To regularize the services of the daily rated workers who have completed 3 years continuous service (as defined under I.D. Act) as on 28.2.2001 against 'normal' & 'Special' class III & class IV vacant posts of corresponding/akin category as per their Chief Engineer wise seniority subject to their fulfilling the qualification as prescribed in the BBMB class III & class IV Employees' (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1994. The instructions issued vide Board's letter dated 8.7.88 for making seniority of daily rated workers for their engagement, dis-engagement and re/engagement on daily wages basis shall remain intact. The instructions issued vide Board's letter dated 8.7.88 for making seniority of daily rated workers for their engagement, dis-engagement and re/engagement on daily wages basis shall remain intact. ” (c) whereunder, the workman is enjoined, to, evidently render three years' continuous service, as on 28.2.2001, and, when a reading of the mandays chart, placed on record, rather omits to disclose qua the afore condition, being satiated by the writ petitioner, (d) given theirs being disclosed in the affidavit, as, sworn by the authorized official, of the respondents herein, rather standing employed, on, a seasonal basis, (e) and, thereupon, when the workmen, though, contested that they were barred to complete, the imperative condition, qua rendition, of, three years' continuous service, hence to be computed, in consonance with the definition, of, “continuous service”, borne in the relevant provisions, of, the Industrial Disputes Act, (f) hence merely, on account of fictional or artificial breaks, being administered qua them, and, the afore breaks being not administered to other workmen, (g) and, when the afore administration, of, fictional, and, artificial breaks in service, to the workmen/writ petitioners, are not founded, upon, any material, demonstrative of it/theirs being actuated, by any pleaded malafides, nor when the afore purported malafides are also not proven, (h) and, also when it has not been proven that the workmen, purportedly junior(s), to, the writ petitioners, who, assumingly stand granted the benefit thereof, were engaged in a capacity akin, to, the capacity, wherein the services were enlisted, in, the apposite muster roll, hence, for rendition of work. (i) Furthermore, when the afore factum is a disputed question of fact, and, requires existence on record, of, cogent evidence, evidence whereof, is amiss hereat, rather when the afore dispute hence warrants, a, reference emanating from the appropriate government, vis-a-vis, the Industrial Tribunal concerned, (j) thereupon, it is not permissible, for the writ court, to, in the exercise of writ jurisdiction, delve into the aforestated disputed question of fact, (k) and, to hence conclude, that, there being any intentional, and, deliberate denials, to, the writ petitioners/workmen, purportedly sparked, by the employers/respondents herein, administering fictional breaks in service, vis-a-vis, the writ petitioners, (l) and, theirs omitting to administer the afore breaks in service, to, the other workmen rendering services under them, in, a category purportedly akin, whereon, the writ petitioners rather stand employed. 5. 5. Be that as it may, the writ petitioners also cast a challenge to the vires of Annexure P-5. However, the policy borne in Anexure P-5, is, drawn in consonance with the verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court, rendered on 10.4.2006 in Civil Appeal No.3595/3612 of 1999, and, hence the vires of Annexure P-6, is, unquestionable before this Court. Even otherwise, the policy, of, regularization, as, borne in Annexure P-5, dilutes the rigour of earlier policy borne in Annexure P-2, inasmuch, as the apposite period of “continuous service” as contemplated in Annexure P-2, is, ordained to be reckonable in the manner contemplated, in the relevant thereto provisions, embodied in the Industrial Disputes Act, (a) whereas, Annexure P-5, contemplates, that, the benefits thereof are bestow able, upon, daily rated workman concerned, upon, his/theirs rather evidently performing “continuous service” for 10 years or more on 31st December, 2006, and, are still working, without, any bar, on the number of days worked. Consequently, when a more liberal benefit of regularization, in, service, to the daily rated workmen, is, hence bestow able under Annexure P-5, vis-a-vis, the prior thereto Annexure P-2, (b) and, when the mandays' chart existing on record, omits to echo, qua the afore ordained therein condition precedent, being evidently satiated, by the writ petitioners/workmen concerned, (c) thereupon, the denying, of, benefit thereof to them, is both apt and tenable, and, the bestowing of benefit thereof, to those workmen, who satiated its criteria, even if purportedly junior(s) to the writ petitioner, cannot, constrain this Court to quash, the, benefit thereof granted to other workmen, purportedly junior to the writ petitioners. 6. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the instant petition(s), and, hence both the petitions are dismissed accordingly. However, it is open to the writ petitioners to raise, an, industrial dispute by seeking a reference being made by the appropriate government, to the Labour Court concerned, qua the purported fictional or artificial breaks in service, administered to them, being ingrained with a vice of malafides, and, the same be condoned. All pending applications also stand disposed of.