JUDGMENT : Vipin Sanghi, J. These Special Appeals arise from the common judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge on 01.08.2018 in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 218 of 2017 and Writ Petition (S/S) No. 863 of 2017 preferred by the appellant. The learned Single Judge, by the common impugned judgment, dismissed the said Writ Petitions. 2. It appears that the appellant was appointed as Security Receptionist initially in December, 1994 for a period of one year. It also appears that her engagement was continued from time to time up to 31.12.2016. She was also occupying official residential accommodation, which she was asked to vacate. 3. Being aggrieved by the non-extension of her services, and the demand made by the respondents asking her to vacate the official residence, she preferred Writ Petition (S/S) No. 341 of 2016, which was disposed of on 31.11.2016 permitting the petitioner to make a representation, which would be decided by the respondents. Consequently, she made her representation on 15.12.2016, which was rejected on 24.03.2017. She then preferred the Writ Petitions in question seeking the following reliefs :- Reliefs sought in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 218 of 2017 :- “a) Issue, writ, rule or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 29-12-2016 and 14.12.2016 after calling the entire record from the respondents. (b) Issue writ rule or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to treat the petitioner in service and conferred her the regular status keeping in view the facts highlighted in the body of the writ petition and the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat and Hon'ble Supreme Court along with all consequential benefits had it been that the impugned order was never being in existence. (c) To award damages or compensation to the petitioner for damages/compensation in tune of Rupees 5 crore or any other amount which the courts may deem fit and proper against the tortuous and malafide act of the respondents and quantify the same and also direct to be recovered the same from the erring respondents who are instrumental for the same. (d) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (d) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (e) Issue writ rule or direction appropriate in nature declaring the condition no.11.4 of the appointment letter dated 31-12-2012 and treating the petitioner as tenure employee as unconstitutional, void and contrary to the decision of the CGIT, which was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court and as well as provisions of Standing Orders Act along with all consequential benefits. Reliefs sought in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 863 of 2017 :- “a) Issue, writ, rule or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 24-03-2017 (as contained Annexure no.2 to this writ petition) after calling the entire record from the respondents. (b) Issue writ rule or direction in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to grant the benefit of regularization along with all consequential benefits had it been the impugned order was never in existence. (c) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (d) Issue writ rule or direction appropriate in nature declaring the condition no.11.4 of the appointment letter dated 31-12-2012 and treating the petitioner as tenure employee as unconstitutional, void and contrary to the decision of the CGIT, which was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court and as well as provisions of Standing Orders Act along with all consequential benefits.” 4. The appellant placed reliance on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No. 17161 of 2004, and the award of the CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Gujarat in CGITA No. 1476 of 2004, to contend that in compliance of the said orders, the services of workmen had already been regularized by the respondents-ONGC, and that she is also covered by the said award and the order of the Gujarat High Court. The appellant placed reliance on the condition contained in her initial letter of appointment to the effect that her appointment is subject to the aforesaid proceedings. 5. On the other hand, the submission of the respondents-ONGC was that the award of the CGIT, and the decision of the Gujarat High Court, were in respect of only the specific employees, to whom it related, and they were not the award/judgment in rem. 6. 5. On the other hand, the submission of the respondents-ONGC was that the award of the CGIT, and the decision of the Gujarat High Court, were in respect of only the specific employees, to whom it related, and they were not the award/judgment in rem. 6. The learned Single Judge accepted this submission of the respondents and, in our view, rightly so. 7. The learned Single Judge, however, observed that the appellant was not a workman. The submission of Mr. M.C. Pant, the learned counsel for the appellant, is that this finding has no basis. He further submits that the respondents had, in fact, raised an objection in their counter affidavit filed in the writ proceedings, that the petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy before the Industrial Tribunal, being a workman. Therefore, the dismissal of the Writ Petition on the ground that the appellant was not a workman is not sustainable. 8. The further submission of Mr. M.C. Pant is that the judgment of the Supreme Court, in India Literacy Board and others v. Veena Chaturvedi and others, 2005 (3) SCC 79 , only relates to the proposition that a writ Court would not issue a mandamus for regularization of a tenure based employee. However, no such limitation exists for the Labour Court/ Industrial Tribunal to issue a direction in that regard, as has been done by the CGIT in its award passed in CGITA No. 1476 of 2004. Mr. M.C. Pant submits that the appellant is willing to proceed to agitate her claim before the Industrial Tribunal, even at this stage. 9. Having heard the learned counsels, we are inclined to permit the appellant to avail of her remedy before the Industrial Tribunal. At the same time, we make it clear that we have not examined the issue : whether, or not, the appellant is a workman, and it shall be open to the Industrial Tribunal to examine the said issue, if raised by the respondents. 10. As we have already noticed hereinabove, the appellant is not covered either by the industrial award rendered by the CGIT in CGITA No. 1476 of 2004, or by the decision of the Gujarat High Court dated 29.04.2015. 10. As we have already noticed hereinabove, the appellant is not covered either by the industrial award rendered by the CGIT in CGITA No. 1476 of 2004, or by the decision of the Gujarat High Court dated 29.04.2015. However, it shall be open to the appellant to raise her claim, and the same shall be adjudicated by the Tribunal on its own merits, after returning a finding on the status of the appellant, as to whether, or not, she is a workman. 11. The appellant has been in occupation of the official residence till date, even though her contractual appointment was discontinued after 31.12.2016. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is ready and willing to vacate the same within two months from today. He, however, submits that the respondents had not paid the CPF amount due to the appellant, which the appellant is ready and willing to accept without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. 12. We, accordingly, direct that the appellant shall handover the vacant peaceful possession of the official accommodation, which the appellant is occupying, on or before 31.10.2022. She shall be liable to pay the normal charges for occupying the said accommodation. Simultaneously, on the vacation of the premises by the appellant, she shall be paid the CPF dues by the respondents. This exercise shall be conducted without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. 13. With the aforesaid directions, the present Special Appeals stand disposed of. 14. Considering the fact that the matter has been hanging fire since 2016, we request the Industrial Tribunal to decide the reference, once made, at its earliest convenience. 15. In sequel thereto, all pending applications stand disposed of.