Madhuresh Prasad, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for Indian Oil Corporation.

2. The petitioners have approached this Court praying for issuance of directions to the respondent-corporation to treat them in the regular establishment in the grade of Junior Operator, Grade-I, from the date on which they were initially engaged as casual workers, i.e. 19.11.1998 and for all consequential benefits.

3. The petitioners were empanelled in the Approved List of Casual Persons (hereinafter referred to as ALCP for brevity). They were to be given job assignments at the locations, by maintaining their attendance in a separate register.

4. The issue regarding the petitioners’ engagement as above was opposed by some unrecognised labour unions which led to institution of Reference Case No. 32 of 1999 before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata.

5. On 11.07.2011, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Kolkata held as follows:—

22. In view of all the discussions made above, I am of the view that in the present reference the workmen union has miserably failed to establish that the action of the management in recruiting/inducting the 28 casual workmen, even though not being sponsored from the Employment Exchange was done unjustifiably nor it has been proved by the workmen union that the action of the management in recruiting Shri Avik Pal ignoring the rights of handicapped sons of S/Shri B.K. Singh and S.B. Saha, employees of IOCL was also unjustified. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the workmen union of the present reference is not entitled to any relief.

6. The petitioners then filed CWJC No. 11651 of 2012 seeking the relief of regularization. Writ petition was disposed of on 22.08.2014 as follows:—

11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant an opportunity to the petitioners to convince the Management that their cases for regularization would be covered under paragraph 50 of Uma Devi's case. In case, any such representation is made, the same would be duly considered…..

7. Another significant development in the present case is filing of writ petition bearing W.P. No. 4780 (W) of 2012 by the workmen of respondent-corporation challenging the award of Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata dated 11.07.2011. The writ petition was dismissed on 13.07.2017 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition). While dismissing the writ petition, the Kolkata High Court has taken note of the liberty granted to the petitioners in their writ proceedings arising out of CWJC No. 11651 of 2012.

8. The legitimacy of the petitioners’ empanelment as ALCPs and engagement thus attained finality whereafter they were offered appointment as Junior Operator (Grade-I) in the respondent-corporation under certain terms and conditions laid down in the letter of appointment.

9. The letter of appointment dated 31.07.2017 contains terms and conditions from which it is obvious that they are being appointed afresh on probation for one year. Subject to satisfactory period of probation, a letter of confirmation was to be issued to the petitioners. By this letter of appointment for the first time, they were placed in salary against a scale and other normal terms and conditions of regular employment. The appointment was also subject to verification process.

10. It is in this background that the petitioners have sought the relief, taken note of above.

11. The petitioners have stated that they have been confirmed in the regular establishment under the confirmation letters (Annexure-12 series to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners), the last being dated 28.05.2019. After their confirmation in regular service, they have filed the instant writ proceedings claiming the relief taken note of above.

12. Mr Mukul Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that in view of the letter dated 19.11.1998 (Annexure-1) whereby they were empanelled, the memorandum of understanding between the management o