JUDGMENT

D.P. Mohapatra, J.-The Hindustan Machines Tools Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as HMT Ltd. ), represented by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director at Bangalore and the General Manager and the Joint General Manager (Personnel Incharge) at Bali Nagar, Hyderabad have filed these appeals by special leave challenging the judgment dated 9th November, 1995 of the Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No.3425 of 1995, which was confirmed in appeal by a Division Bench of that Court by its Order dated 28th December, 1995 in Writ Appeal No.1710 of 1995.

2. HMT Ltd. is a Public Sector Undertaking of the Government of India which, as described by the appellants, has grown into a multi-unit, multi-product, multi-technology Company having four business groups and 20 manufacturing units spread over ten different States in the country. The Company engages casual workers on daily rate basis depending upon the need and exigencies of work. Forty two such casual workers engaged in the unit of the Company at Hyderabad filed the Writ Petition with a prayer to issue a Writ or Order or Direction in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to regularise their services in their respective posts from the date of the initial appointment with all consequential benefits forthwith. The appellants were arrayed as respondents in the Writ Petition.

3. The writ petitioners alleged inter alia that they have been working as helpers and skilled workers in different departments of the Company for long periods of 3 to 10 years continuously. Their engagement has been treated as casual labour on daily wage basis. Some of them have undergone training course (I.T.I.) as apprentice under the Company. On successful completion of the said training the incumbents were given temporary appointments which continued till the date of filing of the writ petition. The writ petitioners further alleged that though they had been discharging duties similar to those of regular employees of the Company, they were denied the benefit of regualrisation of service and other service benefits on that basis. Under such compelling circumstances the casual workers filed the writ petition seeking the reliefs noted above. During pendency of the writ petition, considering the application filed by the writ petitioners seeking interim relief, the High Court passed the order for maintenance of status quo as on the date of the order to ensure continuance of the writ petitioners in service.

4. The respondents in the writ petition refuted the allegations made therein. The gist of the case pleaded by them was that it is necessary for the Company to engage casual workers to cope with the situation arising from absence of regular workers. Engagement of casual workers in such circumstances becomes necessary for continuity of the production line in the units. Engagement of such workers depends on the necessity on a particular day and no assurance of engagement can be given to any casual worker for continuous engagement over a period. The further case pleaded by the Company was that recruitment of casual workers is not according to rules for recruitment which is followed in the case of regular workmen. Therefore, no comparison can be made between the two groups, namely, the casual workers and the regular workmen of the Company. The learned Single Judge of the High Court considered the materials produced by the parties in support of their respective cases and examined the matter in the light of the decisions of this Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Piara Singh & Ors.1, and in the case of Niadar & Anr. v. Delhi Administration & Anr.2, and other decisions of the High Court and disposed of the writ petition by passing the following order :

"(i) That the respondent Company is directed to evolve a scheme of absorbing the petitioners herein who have completed more than 5 years of continuous service with their establishment within a period of