J.B.Koshy, J.

1. In all these writ petitions, the challenge is directed against the award in Reference Case No. 5 of 1993 and 77 of 1994 on the file of the Labour Court, Patna. The issues referred for adjudication in both the cases are whether the termination of the workers named therein by the Bihar State Scheduled Caste Corporation Ltd. (the Corporation, for brevity), a Corporation registered under the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 (the Act, in short) is valid or not and whether they should be reinstated in service and given compensation. The references were made under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short, the ID Act).

2. The workers were appointed by the Executive Officer/Administrator on a temporary basis. Their services were terminated after the continuous service of one year and in that year, they had worked for more than 240 days. All the workers involved in the dispute were appointed in 1990-91 purely on temporary basis. Their services were not confirmed despite their request since, according to the respondent, they were employed in violation of the circular (No. 526 dated 9th February, 1989) issued by the Department of Cooperative, Government of Bihar. As per the above notification, a selection committee, headed by the members of the Board of Revenue, was constituted for selection and appointment to be made in any of the co-operative societies. That appointments, though made purely on temporary basis, were violative of the provisions of the Act and the Circular. Therefore, the appointments were invalid. Some of the workers challenged their termination of services by filing CWJC No. 3773 of 1991, which was dismissed as withdrawn. Some other workers filed another writ petition, which was dismissed on merit by a Division Bench of this Court [See 1992(2) PLJR 568) holding that the appointments were made without authority and thus there is violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and Section 66 of the Societies Act. Section 66B of the Societies Act, as inserted by the Amendment Act 5 of 1989, reads as follows:

"66B.(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or the rules and bye-laws made thereunder, the State Government may, from time to time, by special or general order, determine the nature and number of posts to be created and the mode of recruitment of personnel by Co-operative Societies and prescribe among other things (1) the qualifications, age and experience,

(2) the pay scale and other emoluments,

(3) the method of recruitment,

(4) the conditions of service, and

(5) the disciplinary procedure to be followed.

(2) Any appointment made in contravention of the order of the State Government under sub-section (1) shall be void as if no such appointment ever existed and salary and other allowances paid if any, shall be recoverable under Section 40."

Teja Prasad vs. State of Bihar [1992(2) PLJR 568], while considering identically placed workers case, it was held as follows:

"16.......It is not the case of the petitioners that they were appointed from and on the basis of any panel prepared by the Selection Authority constituted under the aforesaid order of the State Government or by any other authority after observing the well-established norms of selection. If that be so, the one and the only conclusion that will irresistibly follow is that the appointments were void, being in contravention of the order of the State Government aforesaid. Nothing more was to be seen by the Department."

The Court further held thus:

"32. Employment opportunity in public posts is a sacred right guaranteed to every citizen. Every eligible person is entitled to exploit those opportunities and have his share in the wealth of public employment. Any attempt to make appointments in public posts by surreptitious methods would amount to stealing this wealth by denying to the eligible and suitable persons a chance of consideration. That would not be in the interest of the services eit