JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner of Special Civil Application No.3105 of 2002 challenges the legality and validity of award dated 12th March 1999 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara in Reference [IT] No.26 of 92, whereby the Industrial Tribunal has directed the petitioner society to regularize and make permanent the concerned workmen specified in the Schedule contained in the award itself w.e.f. 1/1/1996 and to grant all consequential benefits as a result of their regularization as permanent employees.

2. The petitioner No.1 is a Cooperative Society registered and the petitioner No.2 is a shareholder of the petitioner No.1 who was vitally interested in the management and affairs of the petitioner No.1 society at the material point of time.

2.1 The respondent is an Association which represented the workers employed in petitioner No.1 society and, at his instance, the dispute concerning the regularization of, in all 160 workers was espoused, which came to be referred by the appropriate government before the Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara, and the same came to be culminated into a Reference [IT] No.26/92.

2.2 The respondent union raised a demand with regard to regularization as permanent employees of in all 160 workers who were engaged by the contractors in the petitioner Society.

2.3 The respondent - union in support of its case filed a statement of claim at exh.5 of the record setting out various contentions.

2.4 The petitioner society submitted a detailed written statement opposing the reliefs as prayed for in the statement of claims filed by the respondent- union.

2.5 The Tribunal has allowed the reference in favour of the concerned workers by directing the petitioner society to grant all consequential benefits as a result of regularization of the concerned workers as permanent employees w.e.f. 1/1/1996 and passed the impugned award dated 12th March 1999. Hence, present petition is filed by the petitioner.

3. So far as Special Civil Application No.1855 of 2001 is concerned, it is filed by the petitioner against the action of the respondents of refusing to treat the workmen as regular and permanent workmen despited the award of the Tribunal and consequently, refusing to extend the benefit of voluntary separation scheme offered by the respondents to other regular and permanent workmen employed by the respondent.

3.1 The petitioner is a registered trade union and it has made demand for regularization of the workmen named in the listed annexed with the petition. The petitioner submits that all the workmen named in the list have been working for several years, without any break and are all paid on monthly basis as per the Minimum Wages Act. The petitioner further states that the workmen have been engaged in regular and permanent nature of work which was an integral part of the Establishment. The petitioner also states that the Industrial Tribunal, after considering all the evidence produced before it, was pleased to make the final award on 12th June, 1999. By the said award, the Tribunal was pleased to declare that all the concerned workmen were to be treated as permanent workmen with effect from 1996 and consequently, paid all benefits as paid to the similarly placed permanent workmen of the establishment. The petitioner also states that the respondent Petrofils is a public undertaking with majority of shares held by the Central Government and is an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As a model employer, the respondent was expected to immediately comply with the award and start making payment and regular salaries and other allowances to the concerned workmen by treating them as permanent workmen as directed by the Tribunal. Unfortunately, however, the respondent has not been complying with the award and has not been paying the regular wages as paid to the similar other workmen and the arrears of the salary had also not been paid. The petitioner also states that while in