Jharkhand High Court
The Executive Engineer vs Their Workmen Of Water Resources ... on 27 February, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (L) No. 1544 of 2024
The Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Irrigation
Division, Government of Jharkhand, Sikatiya, P.O. & P.S. Deoghar,
District Deoghar ... ... Petitioner
Versus
Their Workmen of Water Resources Department, Irrigation Division,
Sikatiya, Deoghar represented through it's President, Sichai Kamgar
Union, Chief Engineer Division, Kutchary Road, Deoghar, P.O. & P.S.
Deoghar, District Deoghar ... ... Respondent
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohit, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Manoj Tondon, Advocate
Mr. Siddharth Ranjan, Advocate
---
Reserved on 09.12.2024 Pronounced on 27.02.2025
1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the award dated 05.11.2022 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Deoghar in Reference Case No. 01 of 2013 wherein the learned labour court while answering the reference has held that the workmen are not entitled to due wages after 31.03.2009 but they are entitled for wages at the minimum of the pay scale extended to regular employees holding the same post. The learned labour court also held that the workmen are also entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- per head for removing them without notice and without following the procedure under Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Arguments of the Petitioner
2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner while assailing the impugned award has submitted that the learned labour court had no jurisdiction to decide the case in view of the fact the petitioner, who is Water Resources Department, Irrigation Division, Sikatiya, Deoghar, is 'State' and was discharging sovereign functions. Accordingly, 1 the petitioner is not an 'industry' within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The learned counsel submitted that though the aforesaid point was not specifically raised before the concerned court but it is a point of law particularly in the light of the judgment passed by this Court reported in 2006 (1) JLJR 382 (State of Jharkhand through Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division vs. Jwala Raut). The learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment passed by this Court reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Jhar. 2907 (Pranaya Kumar Srivastava & Others vs. State of Jharkhand) and has submitted that no material was produced on behalf of the concerned workmen to show that the activity of the petitioner was relating to any manufacturing or other related activities. The learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in 2024 SCC OnLine Jhar. 3052 (State of Jharkhand vs. Their workmen, represented by Sichal Kamgar Union) to submit that this Court has framed the point of law and remanded the matter back to the concerned court for fresh consideration of the point, as to whether the division where the workmen were engaged i.e., irrigation department Sikatia is an 'industry' or not within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act.
3. The learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner is not an 'industry' and therefore the concerned labour court had no jurisdiction and consequently the impugned award is fit to be set-aside. He has also submitted that otherwise also the impugned award is not sustainable as the learned court has gone beyond the terms of reference.
Arguments of the Respondent
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent while opposing the prayer has submitted that this Court is exercising power of certiorari and the power of certiorari can be exercised under limited conditions.
5. The learned counsel has referred to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2003) 6 SCC 675 (Surya Dev Rai vs. 2 Ram Chander Rai & Others) paragraph 38 and in particular sub- paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the said judgement to submit that none of the conditions mentioned therein is satisfied in the present case and therefore no interference is called for.
6. The learned counsel has also submitted that not only the materials on record but also various judgments have been considered, and the impugned award cannot be said to be illegal or perverse with respect to the point of reference. The learned counsel has also submitted that the court while holding that the concerned workmen are entitled for compensation for removing them without notice and without following the procedure under Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has entered into incidental question that was relatable to the terms of reference as the petitioner themselves had taken a stand before the learned court that the workmen were removed in terms of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
7. The learned counsel has further submitted that it was only another department of the State Government who had referred the 'industrial dispute' for adjudication, and now it is not open to the petitioner to contend that the reference itself was not maintainable on the ground that the petitioner was discharging sovereign function. He has also submitted that there can be no straight jacket formula as to whether any department of government is discharging sovereign function or not and whether it will be covered within the meaning of 'industry' as defined under Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner having not taken such an objection before the learned Labour Court cannot be permitted to raise such a plea before this Court for the first instance. He has also submitted that such a question is not a pure question of law rather it is a mixed question of fact and law and it was for the petitioner to raise such a point before the learned court so that the matter could have been adjudicated. He submits that in the writ petition praying for certiorari, such new plea cannot be entertained and the impugned award may not be interfered.
38. The learned counsel while referring to the judgment passed by this Court reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Jhar. 3052 (supra) has tried to distinguish the same by submitting that in the said judgment, a plea was raised by the department before the concerned court that they are not 'industry' within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act but the court did not frame any issue to that effect and consequently the issue was framed by this Court and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration and on the limited point and the award was set-aside.
9. The learned counsel submits that each case has to be seen on its own facts and considering the points raised, the evidences adduced by the parties, the learned court has granted a very limited relief to the concerned workmen, inasmuch as, they have been held entitled for compensation @ Rs. 1,00,000/- per head and the learned court has also recorded that although the workmen cannot claim for regularization of their services as a matter of right, but their claim must be considered by the management if cases of similarly situated persons have been considered and their services have been regularized with a further rider that all such exercise should be done at the earliest. It is submitted that the impugned award does not call for any interference in writ jurisdiction as it neither suffers from any illegality nor suffers from any perversity.
Findings of this Court
10. The terms of reference was as follows: -
"Whether, non-payment of due wages and regularization of services of Sri Ranjho Hembrom, Hem Lal Kisku (dead), Hriday Narayan Singh, Jaydeo Prasad Singh, Girdhari Prasad Singh and Mohan Lal Singh (All Chaukidar) by the Management/Employer, Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Sikatiya, Deoghar and Others is justified? If not, what relief they are entitle to?"
11. The specific case of the workmen as per their written statement was that they were employed with the permission of the department on the post of Chaukidars before construction of Sikatiya Barage against 4 sanctioned and vacant post. The land of the workmen was acquired for the project and they were provided employment being land looser except Hem Lal Kisku who was employed on the ground of being a member of scheduled tribe. The workmen were removed from the service for some period and were taken back on duty from March 1999 and they were working since then except Hem Lal Kisku who died before the reference. It was their case that by demand letter, they demanded equal pay and facilities like regular employees. It was their further case that workmen were paid up to 31.03.2009 and their salary after that period was due; all the workmen were entitled for regularization as they had completed more than 10 years of service and it was pleaded that all the workmen are entitled for regularization of their services as they had completed more than 10 years and 5 workmen who were alive were entitled for regularization, equal pay for equal work, and other facilities and the heirs of the deceased workmen were entitled for arrears and other facilities.
12. The management in the written statement took a stand that after construction work of barrage, the workmen were employed on need based on different dates between 1976 to 1988 and such employment was temporary and contractual and payment of daily wages was being made to the workmen. The employment was not against sanctioned post and required procedure, advertisement etc. was not followed. A reference was made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 12448 of 1993 which was filed by some workmen wherein the Hon'ble Patna High Court has passed a direction to take decision whether the workmen could be regularized or not and in the light of the judgment, Water Resources Department, Bihar vide letter No. 07 dated 01.04.1995 issued order to terminate the services of the workmen employed after giving them notice in view of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was their further case that due to decrease in workload the construction of work of the Barrage was stopped and therefore the workmen were not required anymore and their services were 5 terminated from 01.02.1996 after payment of compensation and one- month advance salary. It was their further case that after getting the letter of termination, some workmen moved to Hon'ble Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1225 of 1995 in which no relief was granted and it was only observed that if the project work starts again and the State Government choses to make appointment on daily wages then it might consider to employ the workmen. The judgment in the writ petition was challenged in L.P.A. No. 1251 of 1998 but the Hon'ble High Court refused to grant any relief to the workmen. In the year 1998, when the construction work of Ajay Barrage restarted then in the light of the previous judgment of the Hon'ble Court as well as agreement of the workmen with Ajay Coordination Committee, the workmen along with others were employed in between the year 1999 to 2009 on daily wages basis and payment was made to them. However, from 31.03.2009 no work is being taken from the workmen due to decrease in work after end of construction work of the Barrage. The specific case of the petitioner before the learned labour court was that the workmen were employed in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court till completion of construction of barrage and after completion of construction work, services of these workmen were no more required and the matter of regularization of these workmen was not pending before the Government. It was pleaded that compensation regarding acquisition of land for barrage was already paid, so the demand of regularization of the workmen was not proper.
13. The learned labour court framed the point of adjudication as per the terms of reference. Both oral and documentary evidences were led by the parties. The learned labour court after considering the materials on record including the various judgments relied upon by the parties held as follows:-
a) There cannot be any dispute that post in any administrative government department is created and sanctioned by the State Government by following some 6 process and it is notified about number of posts so sanctioned, nature of post as to whether it is permanent or temporary or contractual or daily wages.
b) There is no material on record that post was sanctioned by the State Government in construction of Ajay Barrage and it was vacant and concerned workmen were posted on that sanctioned post which was vacant at the time of their employment.
c) The workmen have claimed to have been employed on the vacant post but if post was not sanctioned by the State Government there cannot be any question of vacant post.
d) Although the appointment letter of the workmen has not been brought on record either by the workmen or the Management to show whether they were employed on the ground of acquisition of their land in the construction of Ajay Barrage at Sikatiya or otherwise but it was admitted fact that they were employed in the construction of said Barrage.
e) The project for construction of any Barrage has a life of a fixed period or limited period and the workmen must be aware of this fact. Therefore, they cannot claim regularization of their services as a matter of right.
f) It was not the case of Management that the workmen were part timer. On the contrary there was material on the record that they worked full time alike regular employees. Therefore, in the light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Others vs. Jagjit Singh reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148, the workmen are entitled for wages at the minimum of the pay-scale (at the lowest grade in the regular pay-7
scale), extended to regular employees holding the same post.
g) It was contended by the Management that no work was taken from the workmen after 31.03.2009 so no payment was made to them from 01.04.2009. In this regard, in the first part of employment the workmen were removed from service after order and notice from competent authority (Ext.-M-2 and Ext.-M-3) but no such order or notice was brought on record by the Management terminating the services of the workmen.
h) It further appears that payment till the period 31.03.2009 has been made to the workmen in the month of July or August 2012.
i) There was no sufficient ground and reason to believe that the workmen worked even after 31.03.2009 with the Management.
j) It was admitted fact that services of the workmen were not terminated in the second part of their employment by following procedure contained under Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act like their first part of employment and such fact may have given reason to the workmen to believe that their services have not been terminated.
k) Although they are not entitled to due wages after 31.03.2009 but some compensation must be granted to them for removing them from their duties without following due procedure and without notice. In the facts and circumstances, Rs. 1,00,000/- was awarded to the workmen.
l) With regard to regularization, it was held that the workmen had worked for a continuous period of more 8 than 10 years and it was unrebutted evidence that in the second part of their employment, they were employed in the month of March, 1999 and the Management had at least admitted that all the workmen worked till 31.03.2009 and as per Ext. W-12 at earlier occasion services of some daily rated employees were regularized. On this basis, the learned labour court held that the workmen of this case are entitled for consideration of their cases for regularization of their services.
14. The learned labour court while answering the reference held that the concerned workmen are not entitled to due wages after 31.03.2009 but they were entitled for wages at minimum of the pay-scale (at the lowest grade in the regular pay-scale) extended to regular employees holding the same post. This portion of the award does not call for any interference.
15. The learned labour court further held that the workmen or their legal heirs would be entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- for removing them without notice and without following the procedure contained under Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned labour Court also directed that although the workmen cannot claim for regularization of their services as a matter of right but their claim must be considered by the Management if cases of similarly situated persons have been considered and their services have been regularized and all such exercise should be done at the earliest.
16. The learned labour court has recorded a specific finding that it was an admitted fact that the concerned workmen were employed in the construction of barrage and the project for construction of any barrage has a life for a fixed period or for limited period and the workmen must be aware of this fact and therefore they cannot claim regularization of their services as a matter of right. It was an admitted fact on record that the construction of barrage was already complete and that the concerned 9 workmen had not worked after 31.03.2009, still the learned court directed for consideration of regularization of their services. This Court is of the considered view that on the face of the admitted fact that the concerned workmen had not worked after 31.03.2009 and that the project has a fixed period or limited period and the construction was over, there was no occasion to direct the petitioner to consider the claim for regularization.
17. However, the learned court found that the required procedure for termination in terms of Section 25F was not followed and awarded lump- sum retrenchment compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and at the same time directed the petitioner to consider the claim for regularization.
18. This Court is of the considered view that once the compensation for removal without following the procedure under Section 25F was allowed and there was no direction of reinstatement, there was no occasion for the learned court to direct the petitioner to consider the claim for regularization particularly in view of the fact that the construction of barrage was already over which was the reason for removal of the workmen and for taking no work after 31.09.2009. Accordingly, the direction of the learned court to consider the case of the workmen for regularization is perverse and is accordingly set-aside.
19. While considering the jurisdiction of the learned court on the point as to whether the petitioner is an 'industry' within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, this Court finds that it was never the case of the petitioner before the learned labour court that the petitioner is not an 'industry' within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act and hence the reference itself was bad in law. Rather the petitioner had fully contested the case by adducing evidences and by relying upon various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and of the High Court. Before this court, it has been argued for the first time that the petitioner [Water Resource Department, Irrigation Division, Sikatiya, Deoghar] is a State and was discharging sovereign functions and hence is not an 'industry' within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
1020. In the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2001) 9 SCC 713 (State of Gujarat and Ors. Vs. Pratamsingh Narsinh Parmar), it has been held that if a dispute arises as to whether a particular establishment or part of it wherein an appointment has been made is an 'industry' or not, it would be for the person concerned who claims the same to be an 'industry' has to give positive facts for coming to the conclusion that it constitutes an "industry". It has also been held that ordinarily, a department of the Government cannot be held to be an 'industry' and rather it is a part of the sovereign function.
21. This Court is of the considered view that there is no hard and fast rule that establishment or the department of the State Government can never be an 'industry' within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that if a dispute is raised that a particular establishment or part of it is not an industry, then it is for the concerned workmen to lead positive evidence to prove that the concerned department or the establishment is an 'industry' within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act. This is so in view of the fact that ordinarily, a department of the Government cannot be held to be an 'industry' and rather it is a part of the sovereign function.
22. However, in a case, as in the present one, when the petitioner did not choose to raise such objection of dispute that the petitioner is not an 'industry' and contested the case by leading evidences and citing judgments, it is not open to them to contend that for the first time in the writ petition while challenging the award that the Water Resources Department, Irrigation Division, Sikatiya, Deoghar is a 'State' and was discharging sovereign functions and therefore is not an ''industry' and therefore the learned labour court had no jurisdiction to decide the case. The petitioner neither challenged the reference nor challenged the jurisdiction of the learned labour court before the concerned court. Had such a dispute been raised, it was certainly for the workmen to lead positive evidence to show that the petitioner was an industry within the 11 meaning of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This Court is of the view that such a plea as to whether the department or the establishment is an industry or not within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act is essentially a mixed question of fact and law; such a question could have been decided had the petitioner raised such plea before the learned labour court which would have occasioned the workmen to adduce evidence to show that the petitioner was an industry within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
23. In the case of Jwala Raut (supra) relied upon by the petitioner, an award was under challenge and the terms of reference was "whether the termination of services of the workmen Sri Jwala Raut of the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Deoghar was justified and what relief he was entitled to". The learned labour court had set-aside the order of termination and directed the State to reinstate Jwala Raut. The award was challenged in writ jurisdiction. This Court recorded that from the Award, it was evident that no finding was given by the Presiding Officer that the Division where the workman was engaged i.e. Irrigation Division, Deoghar, was an 'Industry', as defined under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the learned labour court had not even determined as to whether the workman had completed 240 days of continuous service in the preceding calendar year and it was also held that in absence of finding relating to exact period of service rendered by the workman, the Award cannot be held to be complete. This Court observed that every Department of the Government cannot be treated to be "Industry" and when the appointments are regulated by the statutory rules, the concept of "industry" to that extent stands excluded and ultimately held that the question of reinstatement of workman on the same post with the same service conditions and pay, as ordered by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Deoghar cannot be implemented, which will otherwise amounts to giving regular appointment against a vacant post taking recourse of Section 25(F) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
1224. In the present case, no such statutory rules governing the recruitment of persons employed in the construction of barrage has been exhibited before the learned court and it has come on record that Water Resources Department had issued order dated 01.04.1995 to terminate the services of the workmen after giving them notice under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and after termination they were re- employed on daily wages. In CWJC No. 1225 of 1995 filed by some of the workmen, no relief was granted and it was only observed that if the project work was again started and the State government felt to make appointment on daily wages, it might employ those workmen. It has come on record that when the construction work was restarted, the concerned workmen were reemployed between the period 1999 to 2000 on daily wage basis and from 31.03.2009 no work was being taken upon completion of construction. The evidence of the petitioner before the learned court clearly demonstrates that they have treated themselves as an industry within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act and had earlier taken steps to terminate the services by referring to Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act then reemployed the workmen but this time provisions of Section 25F was not followed. Therefore, the argument advanced before the learned court that there was no advertisement etc. has no consequences and the judgment of Jwala Raut (supra) does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. Further, in the said case of Jwala Raut (supra), the workmen could not prove that they had completed 240 days of continuous service prior to their termination and an order of reinstatement was passed on the same post with same service conditions and pay and it was held by this Court that such a direction would amount to giving regular appointment against a vacant post taking recourse of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. In the present case, no such direction of reinstatement has been passed and even the direction to consider for regularization has been set-aside as the construction of barrage has been completed. This Court is also of the view that in absence 13 of any plea having been raised by the petitioner before the learned labour court that the petitioner is not an 'industry' within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act and in absence of any such declaration by this Court in the aforesaid judgment that under no circumstances, the department of the Government can be treated as an 'industry', the aforesaid judgment of Jwala Raut (supra) does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case.
25. So far as the judgment passed by this Court reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Jhar. 2907 (Pranaya Kumar Srivastava & Others vs. State of Jharkhand) is concerned, the only point which fell for consideration before this Court was "whether the Minor Irrigation Department of the State of Jharkhand is to be considered as an industry." In the said case, the order passed by the learned writ court whereby the award was set- aside was under challenge. The Court considered the judgments passed in the case of Tata Memorial Hospital Workers Union v. Tata Memorial Centre reported in (2010) 8 SCC 480 wherein it was held that merely because the government companies, corporations and societies are instrumentalities or agencies of the government, they do not become agents of the Central or the State Government for all purposes. The Court in the case of Pranaya Kumar Srivastava (supra) also considered the judgment passed in the case of The Management of Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi v. Kuldip Singh Sethi reported in (1970) 1 SCC 735 wherein it has been held that every case of employment is not necessarily productive of an 'industry' and it has been held that domestic employment, administrative services of public officials, service in aid of occupations of professional men, also disclose relationship of employer and employee but they cannot be regarded as in the course of industry. A reference was also made in the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Pratamsingh Narsinh Parmar (supra). The Hon'ble Division Bench ultimately recorded that in the facts of that case, no material was produced by the workmen to show that the Minor Irrigation 14 Department had multipurpose activity and was also engaged in manufacture and other related activities and held that the Minor Irrigation Department being a government department, the recruitment/appointment was governed by statutory rules and therefore the learned Single Judge rightly held that Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act was not applicable. The Court also vide paragraph 11 distinguished the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1988) 2 SCC 537 (Des Raj Vs. State of Punjab) which referred to various examples concerning the irrigation projects in other States like Madhya Pradesh and, Rajasthan and the Hon'ble Supreme Court pointed out that those Irrigation Projects were multipurpose one and were used for generating electricity as also for irrigation purposes and on those facts, the concerned High Court had come to the conclusion that irrigation department of those States fall within definition in Section 2(j) of the Act. Paragraph 11 of the aforesaid judgment Pranaya Kumar Srivastava (supra) is quoted as under: -
"11. In the case at hand, no material has been produced by the appellants-workmen to show that the Minor Irrigation Department has got multipurpose activity and also engaged in manufacture and other related activities. Paragraph 10 of the Des Raj case : ((1988) 2 SCC 537 : AIR 1988 SC 1182) (supra) refers to the various examples concerning the irrigation projects in other States like Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan. In paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while referring to the irrigation projects of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, pointed out that those Irrigation Projects were multipurpose one and were used for generating electricity as also for irrigation purposes and on those facts, the High Court came to the conclusion that irrigation department of those States falls within definition in Section 2(j) of the Act."
26. In the present case, the aforesaid judgment does not apply, inasmuch as, the petitioner never raised a plea before the learned labour court that it was not an 'industry' within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act and the petitioner had further themselves raised specific plea that on earlier occasion, they had followed Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act to discontinue the services of the concerned workmen and 15 also claimed that on subsequent occasion also, they had followed the provision of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act but the petitioner failed to prove so before the learned labour Court. In view of the aforesaid facts of this case, the judgment relied upon by the petitioner Pranaya Kumar Srivastava (supra) does not apply to the facts of this case.
27. So far as the judgment passed by this Court reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Jhar. 3052 (State of Jharkhand vs. Their workmen, represented by Sichal Kamgar Union) is concerned, this Court has specifically recorded that the petitioner had raised the issue before the learned labour court as to whether the Irrigation Department, Sikatiya was an 'industry' as defined under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the learned labour court did not return any finding on such an issue and consequently, the matter was remanded to the court concerned for deciding the issue. The said judgment will not have any bearing in the present case in view of the fact that the petitioner did not raise an issue before the learned labour court that the petitioner is not an industry within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act.
28. Considering the totality of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the approach of the learned labour court to decide the case on merits in which both the parties duly participated. The award cannot be said to have been passed without jurisdiction. It is not open to the petitioner to raise new plea before this Court in writ jurisdiction particularly when the issue as to whether the petitioner is an 'industry' or not was never raised before the learned court and such an issue cannot be said to be a pure question of law as argued by the petitioner.
29. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings, the impugned award does not call for any interference, except to the extent it relates to direction regarding considering the case of the concerned workmen for regularization which has been set-aside vide paragraph 18 of this judgement.
1630. Consequently, this writ petition is hereby disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
31. Pending I.A., if any, is dismissed as not pressed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Saurav/Mukul/AFR 17