( 1 ) THE facts giving rise to this writ petition need to be recapitulated in some detail.

( 2 ) IT appears that in December 1983 since there were posts of Horticulture Assistants/plant Protection Assistants, the Employment Exchange was asked to sponsor names, consequent upon which the names of the respondents were forwarded. They were selected on July 17, 1984 and all of them joined between August 1, 1984 and August 9, 1984. The appointments, however, were as daily paid workers. They continued to so work till the year 1987 when the Department took the decision to appoint them on adhoc basis till regular appointments were made. This appointment on adhoc basis was upto February 28, 1989. Much before the said date, the respondents had made representations for being treated as regular/permanent employees from the date of their joining service. However, since the representations were found unpalatable, they gave birth to dispute regarding their regularisation and by order dated January 12, 1987 the Delhi Administration referred the same to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The terms of reference were as under:

"whether the non-regularisation of S/shri Yoginder Singh, Satya Kumar, Rajinder Singh, Ramesh Chand Rana, Ram Avtar, Som Vir Singh, Harvir Singh, Bijender Singh, Raj Pal Singh, Suresh Kumar, Mishri Lal Yadav, Inder Singh, Sri Chand Sharma, Ashok Kumar, Dalip Singh, Devender Kumar in the pay scale of 425-700 from the date of joining the service is legal and justified and if not what directions are necessary in this respect?"

( 3 ) ON November 26, 1988 the Industrial Tribunal passed the Award which was notified in the Delhi Gazette on January 11, 1989. It was held that the respondents No. 1 to 15 were entitled to be regularised from the date of their initial appointment. The Award was made accordingly. Needless to say the Delhi Administration is aggrieved by the said Award. Hence this writ petition.

( 4 ) IT was contended by Mr. Poddar, who appeared for the petitioner Delhi Administration, that the reference itself was bad in law in as much as the dispute referred to for adjudication fell neither under the Second Schedule nor under the Third Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act and that as the Tribunal itself had admitted in the Award that the matter fell within Schedule V of the said Act, it had no jurisdiction to traverse on the matter. In support my attention was drawn to paragraph 10 of the Award which runs as under: "the legal position is well settled by the rulings of Hon ble Supreme Court that the employment of persons as daily rated or muster roll labour on jobs of permanent nature for lengthy periods is not proper or desirable. Moreover, Section 2 (ra) of I. D. Act, 1947, Item No. 10 of 5th Schedule specifies that to employ workers as Badlies, Casuals or temporaries and to continue them for years with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen is an unfair labour practice. "

( 5 ) IT was also argued that the Industrial Tribunal had in any case no jurisdiction to pass a blanket order of regularisation and in support reference was made to the following judgments of the Supreme Court: Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union v. Delhi Administration 1992 (4) SCC 99, State of Haryana v. Piara Singh and Others, 1992 (4) SCC 118.

( 6 ) YET another argument advanced by Mr. Poddar was that as the Recruitment Rules prescribe a certain procedure to be followed and as in the matter of appointment of the respondents the said Rules were not followed inasmuch as their selection was not made by a ( 7 ) SELECTION Board duly constituted under the Rules and further as the respondents did not have the requisite experience, therefore, they could not be regularised from the date of their appointment.

( 8 ) LASTLY, it was argued that as the Delhi Administration had formulated a scheme on the directions of the Supreme Court, therefore, regularisation could be ordered only as