A.K. SIKRI (Acting Chief Justice)

1. The controversy involved in these intra-Court appeals questioning the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is in a narrow compass and has arisen in the following factual backdrop.

The matter goes back to the year, 1990 when the appellant herein had issued Notification inviting applications for filling up of certain vacancies in the category of Helper Engineer. A panel was prepared in the year 1990 itself, of the selected candidates. The validity of this panel was for a period of two years. Selected candidates were offered appointment, on the basis of their merits, from time to time as and when vacancies arose. The term of the panel was extended and it finally expired on 15.7.1994. No further appointments were made on regular basis from this panel. The appellant had also engaged different categories of casual workers. A series of writ petitions were filed by many such casual workers in this Court seeking regularization of their services. These writ petitions LPA No.734 of 2011, were filed in the year, 1994-95. In one such writ petition, viz., W.P.(C) No.4113/1994 titled S.K. Saini and Indian Airlines Ltd., interim order dated 07.12.1995 was passed in this Court directing the appellant to prepare panels for engaging casual workers on a daily rated basis in different categories from amongst the casuals who had worked with the petitioner on daily rated basis. Pursuant to these directions, the appellant prepared a panel and started engaging workers from this panel. This writ petition was finally decided along with other connected petitions directing the appellant to engage casual workers on daily rated basis as per its requirements firstly from the panel prepared and approved on 20.11.1990.

2. As per the appellant, since the appellant had to accommodate the left over persons in the selected panel prepared on 20.11.1990 on priority basis, for absorbing these persons, the appellant had no option but to discontinue some other casual employees who were engaged later and thus, their services were discontinued. Some of these persons felt aggrieved by the orders passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 4113/1994. They challenged that order by filing Special Leave Petition No.16382-16399/1997, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 15.9.1997. Some other casual employees also filed 09.5.1997 in W.P.(C) No.4113/1994 filed Writ Petition (C) No.1644/1997 along with other petitions in this Court in the year 1997-98 praying for regularization. In this writ petition, orders dated 21.8.1998 were passed dismissing those writ petitions as barred by constructive res judicata. SLP preferred by those workers against that judgment was also dismissed by the Supreme Court vide orders dated 121.10.1998.

3. According to the appellant, though the matter rested at that, Delhi Offices & Establishments Employees Union, Respondent No.2 espoused the cause of these workers by sending representation to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, on behalf of these workmen, for reinstatement and regularization with consequential benefits. The appellant filed reply thereto submitting that the matter had already been decided by this Court and the Supreme Court and therefore, these workers could not raise dispute of this nature. Conciliation proceedings ended in failure. Thereafter, reference order dated 22.11.2000 was made.

4. Challenging this reference order, the appellant filed W.P.(C) 2019/2001. We may point out that in the reference with regularization and termination of the workmen were refused to. There was no purpose or justification in referring the issue of regularization which had already been decided by this Court in earlier writ petition. Realizing this mistake, counsel for the Central Government conceded that the reference was not properly termed. On this statement, writ petition was disposed of on 20.9.2004 and the order was passed in the following terms:

“Learned counsel for the Central Government says that the