M. Ramachandran, J.

In paragraph 2 of the Original Petition, the petitioners have given the details of their engagement as Hatchery Workers under the Matsyafed-2nd respondent (hereinafter referred to as Federation), in their various Units. Excepting the 6th respondent, others have been served with notice and because of the presence of the second respondent, I do not think this position is to be treated as a defect so as to stall adjudication of the issue. The claim urged is one for regularization of service.

2. The contention is that after imparting six months training in Hatchery operation by technicians, who had been specialized and brought even from abroad, the petitioners have been engaged for work in Hatcheries of the second respondent, in different locations. Statements indicate tat the last of them was engaged pm 20.4.1995 and rest of them had commenced service from earlier dates, in some cases, from February 1993 onwards. Mr. A.X. Varghese, counsel for the petitioners, submits that such service was uninterrupted, though termed as casual.

3. It is further pointed out that later on because of austerity measures, there were restrictions in employing workmen on casual