JUDGMENT 1. Heard. 2. The only issue which arises in this appeal is whether the orders passed by the Tribunal as also by the learned Single Judge holding the respondent entitled to classification as a semi permanent employee are in accordance with the law or not. 3. Learned counsel for the State would submit that the Rules known as 'the Work Charged Employees Service Rules, 1964' (for short, the 'Rules of 1964') governing the scheme to confer semi permanent status on a workman was promulgated in the year 1964 and same was subsequently repealed w.e.f. 17.02.1995. The respondent workman was engaged subsequent to that date, and therefore, it is not a case where during his employment the service conditions were altered to his detriment. The legal position could not be brought to the notice of the Courts below which led to granting semi-permanent status to the respondent. He would submit that it is not a disputed fact but admitted position in law that the Rules under which the respondent has been declared entitled to semi permanent status itself was not in existence in the eyes of law on the day when the orders were passed or even on the day workman was employed. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be interfered with. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the State neither before the labour Court, nor before the learned Single Judge ever contested the case and raised defence to claim of semi permanent status on the ground that the Rules of 1964 stood repealed on the date when respondent employee was engaged, therefore, at this stage, they may not be permitted to raise a new ground of challenge to the orders of the Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge that any such repeal had taken place. 5. We find that in the present case the respondent employee has been conferred the status of semi permanent employee on the basis of Rules of 1964 which were framed by the Governor in exercise of the powers conferred under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India but remained in force till 17.02.1995 when these Rules were repealed vide notification F.5(6) DJP/A-II/92 dated 17.02.1995. This legal position being not in dispute, we hold that the respondent was not entitled to the semi permanent status of employee under the law. This is for the reason that the respondent employee's status as semi permanent is recognized under the law and not de-hors the Rules. The respondent employee was engaged in the year 1996 and by that time, the Rules had already been repealed, and therefore, in absence of Rules, status of semi permanent employee could not be granted to the respondent employee. True it is that this repeal was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge but, at the same time, this is not something pertaining to any disputed questions of facts but an admitted legal position going to the root of the matter. Therefore, once it is brought to the notice of the Court, the order of grant of semi permanent status cannot be allowed to stand in law. Therefore, we are inclined to interfere with that part of the order by which the respondent employee was declared to be entitled to semi permanent status without affecting the order of the Labour Court to the extent the reinstatement was ordered in favour of the respondent employee. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent has brought to the notice of the Court that in large number of cases similar orders were passed in respect of the employees, who were engaged subsequent to the repeal of the Rules of 1964 and those cases travelled upto this Court and one of the case even upto the Supreme Court and the order of reinstatement and semi permanent status has been upheld. 7. In those, it was neither raised nor the Court decided as to whether semi permanent employee status could be claimed by those who are employed after repeal of the Act of 1964. We find that the respondent employee was engaged in 1996 but thereafter he was terminated, which has been held to be illegal. Consequent to the reinstatement, the respondent employee would be deemed to be in service without any break. 8. Resultantly, he was qualified to be considered for regularisation in terms of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others v. Uma Devi (3) & Others. [ (2006) 4 SCC 1 ]. Consequent to the reinstatement, the respondent employee would be deemed to be in service without any break. 8. Resultantly, he was qualified to be considered for regularisation in terms of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others v. Uma Devi (3) & Others. [ (2006) 4 SCC 1 ]. In para 53 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court mandated consideration of claim of regularisation for specific category of employees as one time measure, which reads as under: "53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa (supra), R.N. Nanjundappa (supra), and B.N. Nagarajan (supra), and referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme." 9. Considering the fact of continuance of respondent in the work where he was engaged and reinstatement under a judicial order, he needs to be considered for regularisation in accordance with law as early as possible preferably within a period of three months. Considering the fact of continuance of respondent in the work where he was engaged and reinstatement under a judicial order, he needs to be considered for regularisation in accordance with law as early as possible preferably within a period of three months. The appeal of the State is accordingly partly allowed in the manner and to the extent as stated above.