REBELLO F.I., J.:---Though the impugned orders are different, nevertheless both the petitions have been taken up for consideration together as common questions of law arise.

2. Writ Petition No. 1587 of 1996 has been filed by the Executive Engineer, Yavatmal Medium Project, Yavatmal Division and another. The petitioners had engaged the services of the respondent No. 1 for the purpose of construction of Medium Irrigation Project namely Gokhi, Waghadi, Deogaon, Antargaon and Sakhali-Nala Projects since 1st April, 1980. The respondent No. 1 was engaged on daily wages. On the project work being completed the services of the respondent No. 1 were terminated after preparing a seniority list. A notice of termination was served on the respondent No. 1, 90 days prior to the date of termination. The respondent No. 1 filed a complaint on 8th October, 1985. It may be mentioned that the notice is dated 15th April, 1985. 3 months, therefore expired in July, 1985. The complaint was filed by six workers of which the respondent No. 1 was one of the complainants. In the complaint it was contended that the respondent No. 1 had worked continuously for 5 years without any break and he was liable for regularisation as C.R.T. Mazdoor as per an Award which is known as "Kalelkar Award". The said Award was in respect of Building and Communication, Irrigation and Electricity Department of the State of Maharashtra. In terms of said Award employees, who have put in 5 years continuous service on the work charged or Daily Wages establishment, the posts held by them were to be converted into post of Regular Establishment. This establishment would be known as Converted Temporary Establishment. The Award also contemplated that if an employee from work charged establishment had put in 10 years continuous service as on 1st October, 1966, the post held by the employee was to be converted on the regular permanent establishment. The Award further sets out that the posts held by the employees on converted permanent/temporary establishment are to be treated as individual posts and if the persons so regularised and on relinquishment of the post by the person on account of retrenchment, retirement, resignation, transfer, promotion, etc. the said posts would be automatically abolished. It was made clear that regular establishment and converted regular establishment are totally separate establishments and certain procedure has been laid down therein. Provision is also made after following the procedure of making employees from the C.R.T. establishment on the regular establishment. It was, therefore, contended that they were entitled to regularisation. It was further contended that there were 7 Sub-Divisions under the control and supervision of the petitioners herein and there has to be a common seniority list maintained on Divisional level and if retrenchment is to be done it had to be done by following the said seniority list. It was contended that this has been given a go-bye. The date of joining of the complainants was shown ranging from 1st August, 1977 to 1st July, 1980. The respondent No. 1 herein had joined on 1st August, 1977. It was contended that the petitioners had taken up the work of plantation and the petitioners used to engage the respondent No. 1 therein also apart from other work. It was averred that instead of regularising the respondent No. 1 fresh employees were taken under the garb of Employment Guarantee Scheme. That there was still work available and even though the work was completed, for the purpose of maintaining and cleaning the gates of the canals and services of at least 600 employees were required. It was further pointed out that the provisions of section 25-N were applicable to the establishment. It is also pointed out that the permission of the appropriate Government was not taken for retrenchment and the same was in violation of section 25-N of the I.D. Act. It was further contended that the principle of 'first come last go' or 'la