The main legal point established in the judgment is that the interpretation of the directions of the Industrial Tribunal's award regarding the regularisation of service must be in accordance with the first Division Bench judgment, which reached finality with the dismissal of Special Leave Petition against it.

Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J.

The present reference became inevitable on account of two divergent views expressed by two Division Benches while interpreting the award of the Industrial Tribunal which was referred to in I.D. No.27 of 2002 dated 15.12.2004. Having regard to the facts on record which led to the present situation, it would only be proper to narrate the brief history of the past litigation.

2. When a dispute arose between Petty Contract Workers and Contract Line Workers on one side and the Kerala State Electricity Board (for short 'Board') on other side in respect of regularisation of service of Petty Contract Workers and Contract Line Workers, Government as per G.O.(Rt) No.2929/2002/LBR dated 27.09.2002 referred the following question for consideration to the Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad:-

"whether the demand for regularisation of the services of petty contract workers and contract line workers by KSEB is justifiable?If so what relief they are entitled to?"This reference of the Government in I.D. No.27/2002 came to be disposed of by the Industrial Tribunal by an award dated 15.12.2004 in favour of petty contract workers and workmen worked along with them for regularisation and in that process Tribunal issued relevant directions.

3. By filing W.P.(C) No.28836 of 2005, Board challenged the award of the Industrial Tribunal on several grounds. Ultimately the writ petition came to be dismissed subject to the clarifications given in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Two writ appeals came to be filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.28836 of 2005. W.A. No.627 of 2008 was filed by the Board and W.A. No.615 of 2008 was filed by one of the Unions, a party to the award. W.A. No. 627 of 2008 filed by the Board was considered and disposed of by a judgment dated 10.07.2008 as per Ext.P5 holding that the award does not say that regularisation should be done from Exts.W23 and W24 series lists only. W.A. No.615 of 2008 filed by the Union also came to be dismissed by another Division Bench on 22.10.2008 as per Ext.P6, wherein it was held that the regularisation is to be restricted only to such of those workmen whose name find a place in Exts.W23 and W24 series appended to the award.

4. A Special Leave Petition came to be preferred challenging both the judgments of Division Bench at Exts.P5 and P6. Both the Petitions came to be dismissed on 12.03.2010 opining that there is no good ground to interfere and petitions deserve to be dismissed. Subsequently Board issued a Circular dated 16.09.2010 to implement the award of the Tribunal. In this Circular it is said, a State wise seniority list of petty contract workers and contract line workers who had worked for not less than 1200 days preceding the date of above award has to be prepared to find out eligible candidates for the implementation of the award. When this Circular came to be issued, W.P.(C) No.30264 of 2010 was filed challenging the Circular and also preparation of State wise seniority list by the Board on the ground that the seniority list sought to be prepared as per the Circular is in violation of specific directions in Ext.P3 judgment. Subsequently, W.P.(C) No.30264 of 2010 came to be allowed on 07.12.2010 holding that the list for regularisation can be prepared only from the list of persons appearing at Exts.W23 and W24 lists in accordance with the clarification in Ext.P3 judgment which was confirmed by Ext.P6 judgment.

5. W.P.(C) No.22180 of 2011 came to be filed challenging the seniority list of petty contract workers and contract line workers prepared by Additional Labour Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram dated 05.08.2011. This along with other similar writ petitions came to be disposed of by a common judgment dated 01.11.2011 by the learned Single Judge expressing anguish for not implementing the award dated 15.12.2004 even after lapse of 6 years. Further the list prepared by the Additional Labour Commissioner ordered to b