JUDGMENT : Soumitra Saikia, J. Heard Mr. H.K. Das, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. N.K. Baruah, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 19.06.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 6520/2015 as well as the order dated 15.10.2020 passed in review petition being Review Petition No.117/2019, the present intra Court appeal has been directed by the appellants, namely, The Management of North Eastern Regional Agricultural Marketing Corporation Limited, (NERAMAC), (a Government of India Enterprise, Registered Office 9, Rajbari Path, GS Road, Ganeshguri, Guwahati-781005, Assam. 3. The appellants—North Eastern Regional Agricultural Marketing Corporation Limited, (NERAMAC) is a Government of India Enterprise, having its registered Office at 9, Rajbari Path G.S. Road, Ganeshguri, Guwahati. The appellants—NERAMAC was incorporated to facilitate purchase of marketable surplus of fruits, vegetables and other forest products in the North Eastern Region through a network of centers and also to further facilitate for its processing and marketing. The appellants are under the Administrative control of the Ministry of Development of North Eastern Region (DONER). As per the instructions of the Government of India, the appellants are to generate its own revenue for meeting recurring expenditures. 4. The respondent No.1 is the NERAMAC Workers’ Union, Tripura State Committee, Tripura, Nalkata, P.O-Kanchanchera, District-Dholai, 799264, Tripura, who represents the workmen, who were appointed in various zonal as well as the Head Office at the Fruit Juice Concentration Plant (FJCP), Nalkata on various dates from 1988 to 2001 in various posts, such as typist, steno, electrician, A/C, gatekeepers etc. It is the case of the respondent No.1 that altogether 32 casual employees were appointed by following due procedures prescribed. Out of the 32 casual employees, 7 of those casual employees left the organization due to their personal reasons and some had expired in the meantime. Those remaining 25 employees had continued to work continuously without any break in services on a full time basis and that to the satisfaction of the Management of the NERAMAC. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that some of the employees had completed 22 years of their service. Although some benefits like CPF, leaves, gratuity and medical benefit etc. were granted to these casual employees at par with the regular employees, however, inspite of working on full time basis since 1988, they had never been regularized. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that some of the employees had completed 22 years of their service. Although some benefits like CPF, leaves, gratuity and medical benefit etc. were granted to these casual employees at par with the regular employees, however, inspite of working on full time basis since 1988, they had never been regularized. The Union demanded regularization of the services of these workmen. 5. The Ministry of Labour, Government of India vide their Order No. L-42011/35/2012-IR (DU) dated 04.07.2012 initiated a reference as an industrial dispute between the appellants and the respondent No.1. Another reference between the same parties was also initiated by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India vide its Order No.L-42011/35/2012-IR (DU) dated 12.07.2012. The first reference was initiated by Order dated 04.07.2012 and was registered as Reference Case No.23/2012 whereas the second reference initiated by Order dated 12.07.2012 was registered as Reference Case No.24/2012. The references made by the Government of India were similar in both the reference cases and the schedule of the reference read as under : “Schedule Whether the action of the Management of NERAMAC by not regularizing the services of 32 numbers of casual/contingent workers (as per list in Annexure-A) or not granting equal pay for equal work at par to the regular employee of instantly are legal and justified? What those groups of casual workers/contingent workers are entitled to?” 6. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati before whom the two references were made, framed the following 4 (four) issues:- “(i) Whether the appointment of the workmen involved in the reference was illegal? (ii) Whether the said workmen were appointment against the sanctioned posts? (iii) Whether the workmen are discharging similar nature of works as done by the regular employees of the Management? (iv) Whether the financial position of the NERAMAC does not permit regularization of the workmen raising the dispute?” 7. Upon hearing the parties to the proceedings, the Tribunal vide a common award dated 01.04.2015 in both the reference cases being Reference Case No. 23/2012 and Reference Case No.24/2012 delivered a finding that the appointments of the workmen although irregular was not illegal and all the 4 (four) issues were decided in favour of the workmen. The Tribunal held that the 25 casual /contingent workers were entitled to regularization with financial benefits with effect from 23.04.2004. 8. The Tribunal held that the 25 casual /contingent workers were entitled to regularization with financial benefits with effect from 23.04.2004. 8. Being aggrieved, the writ petition being WP(C) No.6520/2015 was filed by the petitioner/management challenging the award of the Tribunal. Before the Writ Court the appellant challenged the award and assailed the findings of the Tribunal for regularization of the workmen as well as for grant of pay benefits. The Learned Single Judge upon hearing the parties and upon perusal of the materials before the Court held that the finding of the Tribunal in so far as it relates to the regularization of the appellants is found to be not sustainable on facts and on law as it runs counter to the ratio laid down in Umadevi (3) reported in (2006) 4 SCC and M.L. Kesari reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247 . The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that in respect of the relevant factors regarding existence of sanctioned post, vacancies in those sanctioned post, appointment orders of the workmen, recruitment Rules of the appellant whether validly made by competent authority, manner of appointment of the workmen whether through a competitive selection process and whether each of these workmen have a minimum qualifications to be appointed to the post, no evidences were adduced before the Tribunal and therefore held that the order of the Tribunal directing regularization is not valid. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that a blanket direction to regularize the workmen cannot be an order for a mere asking and without the Court rendering a finding in respect of various factors which have been elaborately dealt with by the Apex Court in the case of Umadevi (3) (Supra) and M.L. Kesari (Supra). 9. The learned Single Judge, however, partly allowed the writ petition by directing the appellants to grant financial benefit of ‘equal pay for equal works’ to those casual/contingent workmen who were working at par with the regular employees. The direction for ‘equal pay for equal works’ would operate prospectively with effect from 04.07.2012 which is the date of reference made by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India (reference case No.23/2012). The entire process of granting financial benefits was directed to be completed within a period of 4 (four) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. 10. The entire process of granting financial benefits was directed to be completed within a period of 4 (four) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. 10. In respect of the directions of the Tribunal in so far as it relates to the claims of the regularization of the workmen, the Learned Single Judge interfered with and set aside the award to that extent and the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision in the light of the discussions made in the order of the Learned Single Judge. The relevant paragraph of the Judgment and Order of the learned Single Judge is extracted below:- “26. In view of the discussions above, this Court is of the considered opinion that he finding by the learned CGIT & LC runs counter to the ratio laid down in the case of Umadevi (3) (supra) and M.L. Kesari (supra), because there no finding has been recorded by the learned CGIT & LC on the following factors, viz., (i) the existence of sanctioned posts, (ii) the then existing vacancies in sanctioned posts (iii) whether the appointment orders of the workmen involved was made by a competent “Appointing Authority” as described in Clause 2(iii) of the Recruitment Rules of NERAMAC and whether they were valid and made by competent authority; (iv) Whether the appointment of the particular workmen covered by the reference was made pursuant to a competitive selection process; (v) whether each of the workmen had the minimum qualification to be appointed to the post where he/she had been appointed, Hence, the impugned order is found to be vitiated owing to non consideration of well established legal principles of law. A blanket direction to regularise workmen cannot be ordered for a mere asking and without the Court rendering a finding in respect of various factors, which is elaborately dealt with by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Umadevi (3) (supra) and M.L, Kesari (supra). 27. It is seen that the learned CG/T & LC had relied on the case of State Electricity Board Vs. Pooran Chandra Pandey and Others, (2007) 11 SCC 92 . 27. It is seen that the learned CG/T & LC had relied on the case of State Electricity Board Vs. Pooran Chandra Pandey and Others, (2007) 11 SCC 92 . However, the learned senior advocate for the petitioner had rightly assisted this Court in submitting that the case of Pooran Chandra Pandey (supra) was specifically overruled by a Bench of three Judges of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Official Liquidator Vs. Dayanand & Ors., (2008) 10 SCC 1 . For the said reason, with all respect, this Court is not inclined to follow the decision rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Tripura in the case of Ajay Choudhury & Ors. Vs. North East Regional Agricultural Marketing Corporation Ltd. (NERAMAC) & Ors., WP(C) No. 168/2012, decided on 12.06.2017, which was cited by the learned advocate for the respondents. 28. In the absence of finding on the above 5 (five) factors, this Court is constrained to hold that the order impugned herein is not sustainable. However, as the case involves long period of service rendered by the workmen of NERAMAC, this Court is inclined to remand the matter for a fresh decision by the CGIT & LC i.e. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. 29. In order to enable the respective parties to address the learned CGIT&LC on the said 5 (five) factors as indicated above, it is provided that it would be open for the parties to the said Ref. Case No. 23/2012 and Ref. Case No. 24/2012 to make suitable prayer before the said learned CGIT&LC to amend their pleadings and/or to lead further evidence in respect of the said five factors. If such prayer is made, the said learned CGIT&LC shall give a reasonable opportunity to both sides and decide the Ref. Case No, 23/2012 and Ref. Case No. 24/2012 afresh. It would be open for the said learned CGIT&LC to limit adjournment to both sides for expeditious disposal of the cases. 33. Thus, the writ petition is partly allowed. That apart of the impugned judgment and award dated 01.04.2015, in Ref. Case No. 23/2012 and Ref. Case No. 24/2012, wherein direction has been given to regularise the service of 25 casual/ contingent employees is interfered with and is set aside. In that regard, the matter is remanded back to the CGIT & LC for a fresh decision in the light of the discussions above. Case No. 23/2012 and Ref. Case No. 24/2012, wherein direction has been given to regularise the service of 25 casual/ contingent employees is interfered with and is set aside. In that regard, the matter is remanded back to the CGIT & LC for a fresh decision in the light of the discussions above. 34. In order to enable the respective parties to address the learned CGIT&LC on the said 5 (five) factors as indicated above, it is provided that it would be open for the parties to the said Ref. Case No. 23/2012 and Ref. Case No. 24/2012 to make suitable prayer before the said learned CGIT&LC to amend their pleadings and/or to lead further evidence in respect of the said five factors. If such prayer is made, the said learned GIT&LC shall give a reasonable opportunity to both sides and decide the Ref. Case No. 23/2012 and Ref. Case No. 24/2012 afresh. It would be open for the said learned CGIT&LC to limit adjournment to both sides for expeditious disposal of the cases. 35. The petitioner is directed to comply with that part of the order passed by the learned CGIT & LC to grant financial benefit of “equal pay for equal work” to those casual/ contingent workmen who were working at par with the regular employees. However, the said direction for equal pay for equal work would operate r prospectively from the date of reference 1.e. 04.07.2002, the date when reference was made by the Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India (Ref. Case No. 23/2012). The entire process for granting financial benefit shall be concluded within a period of 4 (four) months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, failing which it would be open to the respondents to enforce that part of the award passed by the learned CGIT & LC, as modified herein, in accordance with law.” (Emphasis supplied) 11. Being aggrieved by the direction of the learned Single Judge, directing the appellants to pass necessary order for grant of financial benefit of ‘equal pay for equal works’ to the respondents, a review petition was filed being Review Petition No. 117/2019. Being aggrieved by the direction of the learned Single Judge, directing the appellants to pass necessary order for grant of financial benefit of ‘equal pay for equal works’ to the respondents, a review petition was filed being Review Petition No. 117/2019. The Learned Single Judge vide Judgment and Order dated 15.10.2020 accepted the prayer for insertion of certain particulars relating to the date of reference as regards Reference Case No.24/2012 and accordingly, paragraphs 31 and 35 of the Judgment and Order dated 19.06.2019 passed in WP(C) No. 6520/2015 stood rectified in terms of the review order. However, the Learned Single Judge declined to review the directions to grant financial benefits of ‘equal pay for equal works’ to the respondent workmen by holding that the same is beyond the scope of review jurisdiction. 12. Being aggrieved the appellants have approached this Court by filling the writ appeal being W.A No.224/2020. During the course of the hearing, it was pointed out that in terms of the Judgment and Order dated 19.06.2019 passed in WP(C) No. 6520/2015, whereby the writ petition was partly allowed and the claim of regularization of the workmen was remanded back to the Tribunal to re-decide the matter in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Umadevi (3) (supra) and M.L. Kesari (supra), the Tribunal vide award dated 13.12.2021 declined to pass any award giving directions for automatic regularization of the workmen concerned as regular employees upon their failure to qualify the 5 (five) factors determined by the learned Single Judge in Judgment and Order dated 19.06.2019 passed in WP(C) No. 6520/2015 in paragraph 26. It is informed at the bar that the subsequent award dated 13.12.2021 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati, whereby the Tribunal had declined to pass any award directing automatic regularization of the respondent workmen upon their failure to fulfill the factors mentioned in the Judgment and Order dated 19.06.2019 of the Learned Single Judge passed in WP(C) No. 6520/2015 has not been assailed before this Court by the workmen. 13. Learned counsels for the parties have been heard. Pleadings on record have been duly perused. The common award dated 01.04.2015, the Judgment and Order dated 19.06.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 6520/2015 and Order dated 15.10.2020 passed in Review Petition No. 117/2019 have been carefully perused. 14. 13. Learned counsels for the parties have been heard. Pleadings on record have been duly perused. The common award dated 01.04.2015, the Judgment and Order dated 19.06.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 6520/2015 and Order dated 15.10.2020 passed in Review Petition No. 117/2019 have been carefully perused. 14. It is seen that the questions before the learned Single Judge were – (i) claim of regularization of the casual/contingent workers, who were arrayed as respondents and (ii) grant of financial benefits ‘equal pay for equal works’. 15. In so far as the first issue is concerned the learned Single Judge had elaborately considered the case laws rendered by the Apex Court more particularly the Judgments rendered in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and the case of State of Karnataka Vs. M.L. Kesari reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247 . The learned Single Judge by referring to the said Judgments had rendered a finding that as held by the Apex Court before anyone can seek regularization the following factors must exist:- (i) existence of sanctioned posts, (ii) existing vacancies in sanctioned posts, (iii) persons appointed in vacancies against sanctioned posts are duly qualified persons and (iv) appointment to such vacant post must have been made through open competitive selection process. 16. It is seen that the learned Single Judge had returned the finding that there is no material on record to show before this court that any of the casual/contingent employees of the appellant in respect of whom the references were made before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court were appointed by following open competitive selection process. Relying upon Umadevi (3) the learned Single Judge held that the regularization is not a mode of appointment and contractual appointees cannot be regularized because it would amount to fraud on the Constitution of India, and would be hit by the principles of the Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge held that the respondent workmen did not present any materials to prove the manner in which the vacancies were advertised for public participation in the selection process. Out of 25 persons for whom the reference was being persuaded, the appointment orders of only 14 workmen were exhibited. The learned Single Judge held that the respondent workmen did not present any materials to prove the manner in which the vacancies were advertised for public participation in the selection process. Out of 25 persons for whom the reference was being persuaded, the appointment orders of only 14 workmen were exhibited. Although the appointment orders were made by the Manager Administration, i/c Fruit Juice Concentration Plant, Nalkatta, Zonal Manager, NERAMAC, Agartala, Deputy Production Manager, Fruit Juice Concentration Plant, Nalkatta, however the Tribunal did not return any finding as to whether the appointments were so made were by the competent appointing authority as defined under clause (iii) of the Recruitment rules of NERAMAC. 17. The learned Single Judge held that as per Recruitment Rules, Section II, Rule 1 (iv) provides that these Rules do not apply to labourers/work charged employees in factory or other undertakings of the Corporations unless the Board decides otherwise. It was held by the learned Single Judge that without ascertaining as to which authority is the competent appointing authority, the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the appointment of the workmen involved in the reference was irregular and not illegal, is not supported by the documentary evidences on record. 18. We have given our anxious thoughts to the contentions raised before us. The only question which is presented before us is whether the directions of the learned Single Judge directing the appellants to grant financial benefits for ‘equal pay for equal works’ would require any interference. The learned Single Judge had relied upon the Judgment of State of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148 to issue the directions to the appellants to grant financial benefit to the respondents. 19. For getting the benefit of equal pay at par with regular employees, the workmen must get engagement on the basis of some selection and not merely on a pick and choose basis. The employees who claimed benefit of ‘equal pay for equal works’ must be performing work, which is equal and of the same nature and quality of the work performed by regular employees. There has to be evidence brought before the Tribunal on the basis of which such findings can be returned. The employees who claimed benefit of ‘equal pay for equal works’ must be performing work, which is equal and of the same nature and quality of the work performed by regular employees. There has to be evidence brought before the Tribunal on the basis of which such findings can be returned. The learned Single Judge in the impugned Judgment had clearly held that there was no evidence led before the Tribunal in respect of the various factors in order for the Tribunal to have allowed the prayers for regularization. These factors which the learned Single Judge held were necessary for determining the claim of the regularization of the respondent workmen, will also be relevant in determining whether they are entitled to the financial benefit of ‘equal pay for equal works’. 20. However, a careful perusal of the Judgment under Appeal as well as the common award dated 01.04.2015 passed by the Tribunal, we find that there was no evidence brought before the Tribunal to support the claim of the workmen to return a finding that the respondent workers were doing similar works as other regularized employees. Such findings are required to be rendered on the basis of evidences adduced before the Tribunal. The learned Single Judge had correctly held that there was no evidences led before the Tribunal to arrive at a finding that the appointments/engagements of the respondents were irregular and not illegal. Similarly for returning a finding that the respondents workers had been rendering similar works as other regularized employees and therefore, were entitled to be granted the financial benefits of ‘equal pay for equal works’ is also required to be based on evidences led before the Tribunal. In the facts of the present case we find that no such evidences were led before the Tribunal. In that view of the matter we are of the considered view that the directions of the learned Single Judge directing grant of financial benefits to the respondents cannot be sustained in law in the absence of any evidence led before the Tribunal to that effect and the same is therefore set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to re-decide on these issues by leading such evidences as may be adduced before the Tribunal by both parties to the proceedings. 21. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to re-decide on these issues by leading such evidences as may be adduced before the Tribunal by both parties to the proceedings. 21. In view of the above discussions we are of the considered view that the Judgment under appeal needs to be interfered with and set aside. The same is therefore, set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to re-decide the issue as directed above and the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. 22. The Writ Appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated. 23. No Order as to cost.