JUDGMENT

A.K. MATHUR, J.

1. These appeals are directed against the order passed by the Allahabad High Court dated May 21,2004 whereby the Full Bench of the High Court has disposed of all the writ petitions filed by the workmen against Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Company) and the Regional Manager, IRCON, Rihand Nagar, Sonbhadra. The Full Bench held that the petitioners are not entitled to benefit of continuation of service or regularization as the project stood closed on 6.2.1998. It was held that project stood completed in all respect except necessary electric or other odd works left over. It was also held that petitioners did not apply for recruitment in service of the Company as per the Service Rules and those who appeared and were found suitable were selected and appointed under the service rules of the Company but others who could not appear, their services were terminated in accordance with law. Hence, in total analysis, it was held that sentiments must yield to the cold logic of law, however, hard the case may be. Hence all writ petitions were dismissed.

2. It would be necessary to recapitulate the facts giving rise to these appeals because this is second and third innings of the matter, which has come up before this Court. Earlier the matter came up before this Court wherein the question arose was whether Section 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was complied with or not, this Court held that Section 25N was not complied with. Hence, this Court disposed of the petitions holding that Section 25N was not complied, therefore, termination of all workmen was bad and remitted the matter [Mohammad v. Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd.1 reported in back to the High Court with following directions:-

"28. In view of the aforesaid discussion and in the light of our finding that Chapter V-B applies to the respondents Anpara-Rihand Project, in the remanded proceedings in the restored writ petitions of the present 25 appellants, the following questions would squarely arise for consideration of the High Court:-

(i) Whether the Anpara-Rihand Nagar Project is subjected to a factual closure as mentioned in the impugned notices of March 1998 or whether the Project is not still completed;

(ii) in the light of the answer to the aforesaid question, a further question would arise whether the impugned notices of March 1998 were in fact and in law closure notices as per Section 25-O read with Section 25-FFF of the Act or whether they still remain retrenchment notices and hence would be violative of Section 25N of the Act;

(iii) even if it is held that Anpara-Rihand Nagar Project is in fact closed down, whether the 25 appellants were employed in the Project or they were employees of the respondent Company entitling them to be absorbed in any other project of the Company and consequently whether the impugned notices have not effected any snapping of the employer-employee relationship between the appellants on the one hand and the respondent-Company on the other;

(iv) even apart from the aforesaid questions, whether the impugned notices were violative of the guarantee of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the termination of services of the 25 appellants was arbitrary and discriminatory, the respondent-Company being a "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India."

Salient facts, which are necessary for disposal of these appeals are :-

3.1. Twenty five petitioners filed writ petition against the respondent Company, which is a construction company wholly owned by the Government of India. It carries out various construction projects throughout the country and abroad. These writ petitioner workmen were employed by respondent Company and respondent nO.2 is its Regional Manager who was monitoring project of construction of a railway line of 54 kms. known as Rihand Nagar Project in State of Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referr