( 1 ) IN Delhi Development Authority versus Skipper Construction and ANr. reported in 2005 (3) Supreme 335, it has been observed by the apex court as under:"there are some cases which at times strengthen the idea that existing laws may be inadequate to grant relief to persons whom, the court feels genuinely to be entitled to relief. Courts, more particularly, this court, will not adjure its duty to prevent violent miscarriage of justice by passing such orders as are necessary to uphold the rule of law and lift the veil of purported legality over such perfidious acts. In such cases the Court should not allow itself to be deflected by red herrings drawn across the track. It has to pass such orders as the circumstances warrant, of course within the four corners of law to secure the interest of justice and to appease its judicial conscience. The facts of the present case have some such unique features. In Miller v. Minister of Pensions (1947 (2) All ER 373), it was observed that the law would fail to protect community if it admitted fanciful possibilities to deflect the course of justice. Technicalities should not stand in the way of Courts doing substantial justice. "

( 2 ) HEARD learned advocate Mr. P. H. Pathak with Mr. Handa for the applicant and Mr. A. K. Clerk with Mr. G. N. Shah, learned advocates for the respondent. This application has been filed by the applicant for restoration of SCA NO. 711 of 1992 on 29th April, 2005. This Court has, while issuing notice to the other side on 29th April, 2005, meanwhile, directed the respondents not to terminate the services of the workmen whose names have been mentioned in para 1 of the Special Civil Application No. 711 of 1992 otherwise in accordance with law. Respondent has filed reply dated May 6, 2005 opposing the present application for restoration. Copy thereof has been served upon the petitioner and rejoinder thereto has also been filed on behalf of the petitioner by one of the workmen namely Mr. J. B. Makwana on 12th May, 2005. Copy thereof has been served upon the respondent. No sur rejoinder thereto has been filed by the respondent thereafter.

( 3 ) IN the main petition, the petitioner Rashtriya Mazdoor Union has challenged the award passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Reference (ITC) No. 31 of 1989 dated 10th October, 1991 wherein the reference was dismissed by the industrial tribunal, Ahmedabad. Dispute between the parties as per the demand raised by the union was in respect of the employees engaged on casual/contract basis by the Management Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. was for permanency and other consequential and fringed benefits is justified and if so, to what relief the workmen concerned are entitled ? According to the petitioner union, the workmen were in service from 1983-84. The industrial tribunal adjudicated the dispute and ultimately dismissed the reference which was made at the instance of the petitioner union. In petition, rule was issued by this court (Coram : AP Ravani and C. K. Thakkar,jj.) on 12. 2. 1992 and by way of ad. interim relief, the respondents were directed not to terminate the services of the workmen whose names have been mentioned in paragraph 1 of the petitioner otherwise than in accordance with law. The exact order passed by this Court on 12. 2. 1992 in SCA No. 711 of 1992 is reproduced as under:"rule. By way of ad. interim relief, respondent is directed not to terminate the service of the workmen whose names are mentioned in para 1 of the petition otherwise than in accordance with law. "petition remained pending before this court till it was dismissed by this court for default. From the record, it appears that the respondent has not filed any reply against the petition. However, learned advocate Mr. Clerk has made it clear that he is having copy of the reply dated 19. 10. 1993 but from perusal of the record, it appears that no reply has been annexed to the petition. Main petition remained