JUDGMENT : VIJU ABRAHAM, J. W.P.(C)No.4620 of 2021 It is averred that the petitioners 1 to 5 were appointed as Junior Project Assistants and the 6 th petitioner as Junior Assistant in the 2 nd respondent Corporation. They have been working in the Corporation ever since its formation in 1995. Immediately on the formation of the Corporation, Rules were framed for the appointment of the Managing Director of the Corporation as per G.O.(MS)No. 19/95/SCSTDD dated 07.06.1995, and accordingly, the Managing Director was appointed in 1995. After due process of selection, the petitioners were appointed in 1995 by the then Managing Director. Subsequently, the Government issued G.O. (MS)No.23/96/SCSTDD dated 29.03.1996 prescribing the method of appointment of the executive staff of the Corporation. Thereafter, the special rules were amended as per Ext.P1 Government Order dated 29.09.1997. As per Ext.P1 special rules, fresh applications were invited, and the petitioners applied for various posts based on their qualifications. Accordingly, an interview board was constituted, and the board interviewed all the applicants and the petitioners who were found to be more suitable were selected and appointed. By Ext.P1 Special Rules, category No.13 is Junior Assistant/Clerk, and the method of appointment is direct recruitment. The qualification prescribed is a Degree in Arts/Science/Commerce recognised by the Universities in Kerala. Category No.14 is Junior Project Assistant, and the method of appointment is direct recruitment. The qualification is the completion of pre-degree course. As petitioners had qualification for appointment to the said post, they were granted appointment strictly in compliance with Ext.P1 special rules. Along with the petitioners, a larger number of other workers were also appointed on a daily wage basis during the year 1995-1996. While so, the petitioners were terminated in 2000. Thereupon, an industrial dispute was raised and the matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal as ID.No.54/2003, and as per Ext.P2, ID No.54/2003 was allowed, holding that the termination of service of the petitioners is illegal and therefore, they are entitled for reinstatement with 50% of the backwages, continuity of service and all other consequential benefits. But the 2 nd respondent Corporation did not take any steps to implement the same, and they challenged the Award before this Court, filing W.P.(C)No.29529 of 2012, which was ultimately dismissed as per Ext.P3 judgment. But the 2 nd respondent Corporation did not take any steps to implement the same, and they challenged the Award before this Court, filing W.P.(C)No.29529 of 2012, which was ultimately dismissed as per Ext.P3 judgment. Thereafter, appeals were preferred by the Management as W.A.Nos.1941 of 2014 and 1922 of 2014, and as per the interim order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the petitioners were re-engaged from 2014, but on daily wages. The appeals were also dismissed as per Ext.P5 judgment. Hence, further aggrieved, the 2 nd respondent approached the Apex Court, filing S.L.P.No.6533 of 2017, which was also dismissed as per Ext.P6. Only on filing of a Contempt of Court Case that the directions in Ext.P2 Award of the Industrial Tribunal was complied. The petitioners would submit that while so 56 daily wage employees engaged along with the petitioners in 1995-96 were regularised as per Ext.P7 Government Order, and later two other employees, who were also appointed along with the petitioners on a daily wage basis as Clerk/Cashier from 1995 onwards, were also regularised by Ext.P8 order. Thereupon, the petitioners approached this Court filing W.P.(C)No.4393 of 2019, seeking regularisation of service as granted by the Government as per Exts.P7 and P8. This Court as per Ext.P9 judgment, relegated the petitioners to approach the Labour Court concerned. Thereafter, the matter was numbered as I.D.No.34 of 2020 and by Ext.P10, the labour court dismissed the claim of the petitioners, holding that the petitioners are not eligible for regularisation. It is aggrieved by the same that the present writ petition has been filed. W.P.(C)No. 11072 of 2021 2. This writ petition also challenges the very same award passed by the Labour Court in ID No.34/2020. W.P.(C)No.5764 of 2017 3. This writ petition is filed seeking a direction quashing Ext.P5 notification published by the 2 nd respondent inviting applications for appointment as Junior Assistants on a contract basis on the ground that the Award in ID No.34/2020 is under challenge before this Court. 4. In W.P.(C)No.5764 of 2017, an interim direction was issued by this Court that the appointments pursuant to Ext.P5 notification shall be made only after setting apart 12 vacancies for the petitioners and others covered by the judgments in Exts.P1 to P4. 5. 4. In W.P.(C)No.5764 of 2017, an interim direction was issued by this Court that the appointments pursuant to Ext.P5 notification shall be made only after setting apart 12 vacancies for the petitioners and others covered by the judgments in Exts.P1 to P4. 5. The stand of the respondent corporation is that the corporation was established in the year 1995, and the Special Rules were introduced and amended in the year 1997. Thereafter, new Special Rules came into force w.e.f 05.09.2014 by which the recruitment for appointment in the corporation was entrusted with the Public Service Commission. Initially functions of the corporation were carried out with employees appointed through deputation, along with some daily wage employees whose engagement was not in accordance with special Rules and without following any procedures. The petitioners who were disengaged were reinstated in service pursuant to the direction issued by the Labour Court and this Court, and 50% back wages was also paid. Later, the 1st petitioner was terminated from service on the ground of unauthorised absence and the 4 th petitioner was relieved from service on completion of 58 years. Since the very engagement of the petitioners were not in any sanctioned post, and without following any selection procedures, and that they do not possess the requisite qualification, the claim for regularisation cannot be granted to the petitioner. Now, as per the Special Rules, selection is to be made through the Kerala Public Service Commission, and steps were taken by the corporation for making appointment through the PSC. 6. I have heard the rival contentions on both sides. 7. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in Ext.P9 judgment in W.P.(C)No. 830 of 2019, the claim of the petitioners for regularisation was considered by the Labour Court and Ext.P10 award was passed declining the claim raised by the petitioners. The specific case of the petitioner is that their appointment is as per Ext.P1 Special Rules, and after undergoing a selection process including interview and the petitioners were selected and appointed. Their subsequent termination from service was interfered by the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam as per Ext.P2 award and a direction was issued to reinstate the petitioners with 50% back wages, continuity in service. Their subsequent termination from service was interfered by the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam as per Ext.P2 award and a direction was issued to reinstate the petitioners with 50% back wages, continuity in service. In Ext.P2 award of the Industrial Tribunal, as regard the claim of regularisation raised by the workman, the Tribunal entered a finding that since the same does not arise as a reference in the dispute, their claim for regularisation cannot be considered by the Tribunal, but there is a finding in Ext P2 award that since the workman are eligible for regularisation it is to be considered by the Board of Directors of the Corporation and the Government. The petitioners has a specific contention that by Ext P7 and P8, the Government has regularised the services of the employees who are similarly situated with the petitioners and the petitioners alone were discriminated in the matter of regularisation. Though these orders of regularisation were placed before the Labour Court, in Ext.P10 award the finding of the Labour Court is to the effect that the Court is powerless to give a direction to the Government to regularise the workman in service, circumventing the Special Rules. Reliance was also placed by the Labour Court in the judgment of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnatka and Others v. Uma Devi and Others [ (2006) 4 SCC 1 ] . Taking a stand that the Labour Court is powerless to issue a direction to the effect that the Court is powerless to give a direction to the Government to regularise the workman in service, circumventing the Special Rules, Exts.P7 and P8 order granting regularisation to similarly situated employees was not considered by the Labour Court. 8. It is a fact that by Exts.P7 and P8 orders, the Government granted regularisation to 58 employees, and the petitioners claim that they are similarly situated and therefore they are also entitled for regularisation. The said contention raised by the petitioners was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Ext.P5 judgment in W.A.No.1922 of 2014 and connected case and paragraph 16 of the said judgment reads as follows: “16. The definite stand taken by the Corporation in both the Reference before the Tribunal was that the recruitment of the respondents/employees was not by any selection process and such being the case, there is no question of termination. The definite stand taken by the Corporation in both the Reference before the Tribunal was that the recruitment of the respondents/employees was not by any selection process and such being the case, there is no question of termination. It is also contended that there was no public notice, no written test, no appointment order or termination order and the employees in dispute were recruited in an interview and so there was no selection process. It is also contended that the special rules for recruitment of the employees to the Corporation was framed in the year 1996 (after their appointment) and they were allowed to continue even after the commencement of special rules. The respondents along with the counter affidavit had produced Ext. R1(a) by which the Government accorded sanction to regularize the services of 56 employees and two other employees by Ext. R1(b). The learned counsel for the respondents would argue that the Corporation being the instrumentality of State is bound by the mandates of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and it cannot discriminate the similarly placed persons. No doubt , the Corporation can make appointment to its service only in accordance with the principles contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The contention of the Corporation is that the Special Rules for selection of employees was framed only in the year 1996 and the Special Rules were amended on 29.9.1997 and thereafter, the employees are selected as per the Rules. It is well established that the services of 56 employees recruited by the Corporation before the Special Rules were framed, were regularized. Two sets of workmen in the same industry have received unequal treatment. Such being the case, the contention raised by the contesting respondents in both the writ appeals is that there is discrimination by the Corporation in regularizing their employment, even though all of them have worked for more than 240 days continuously in the Corporation and hence it is neither fair nor legal but, is contrary to the well established principles of law. Article 14 of the Constitution enshrines the principle of equality. Article 14 of the Constitution enshrines the principle of equality. As per Article 16, there shall be equality for all citizens in the matter relating to employment.” In the said judgment, the Division Bench has found that if two sets of workmen in the industry have received unequal treatment, the same is neither fair nor legal and is contrary to the well-established principles of law, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Though, an SLP was filed challenging the said judgment, by Ext P6 order the SLP was dismissed by the Apex Court. Therefore, the finding in Ext.P5 judgment has become final. The finding in Ext P5 judgment, as quoted above, was also not taken into consideration by the Labour Court while issuing Ext P10 order holding that the Court has no power to direct the Government to regularise the service of the petitioners, relaxing the Special Rules. Petitioners submit that the Apex Court in Jaggo v. Union of India and Others , SLP No.5580 of 2024 and Shripal and another v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad , Civil Appeal No.8157 of 2024 has considered similar issues regarding regularisation and the claim of the petitioners is to be considered in the light of the same. 9. Since the Labour Court has rejected the claim of the petitioners as per Ext.P10 essentially relying on the Special Rules which later came into force and that the Court is powerless to issue a direction to the Government to regularise the service of the petitioners in relaxation of the Special Rules and that Ext.P7 and P8 orders of regularisation was granted by the 1st respondent Government, I am of the view that the matter has to be considered by the 1st respondent Government. Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of as follows: 1. Ext.P10 award passed by the Labour Court, Kollam, dated 27.01.2021 in I.D. No. 34 of 2020 (Ext.P8 in W.P.(C)No. 11072 of 2021) is accordingly quashed. 2. The petitioners shall submit appropriate representation before the 1 st respondent Government, raising a claim for regularisation, along with all supporting documents, including Exts.P7 and P8 orders of regularisation granted by the Government and also the judgments relied on by the petitioners in support of the claim, within a period of 1 month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. 3. 3. On receipt of the same, the 1 st respondent Government shall consider the claim of the petitioners for regularisation, duly adverting to all the documents and the judgments relied on by the petitioners in support of their contention and after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and the 2 nd respondent, Kerala State Backward Classes Development Corporation Ltd. and any other affected persons and pass orders on the same within an outer limit of 3 months thereafter. While taking a decision as directed above, the contention taken by the respondent corporation in Paragraph 4 of their counter affidavit that the 1st petitioner in W.P.(C) No.4620 of 2021 has been terminated from service and further that the 4 th petitioner has been relieved from service shall also be taken into consideration. 4. Till a decision is taken as directed above, the interim order dated 21.02.2017 in W.P.(C) No. 5764 of 2017 will continue. 5. The Trial Court records shall be transmitted to the Labour Court, Kollam by the registry forthwith.