The main legal point established in the judgment is that the regularisation of service could only be from the date of the petitioners' appointment in regular service i.e., 03.10.2012, and not from the date of their initial employment as NMRs in the year 1984.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India toissue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the issue of the impugned order Na.Ka.No.6374/2006 E-2 dated 04.05.2016 passed by the third respondent and quash the same.)

1. The petitioners have filed these writ petitions seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the issue of the impugned order Na.Ka.No.6374/2006 E-2 dated 04.05.2016 passed by the third respondent and to quash the same.

2. Since the issue involved in these writ petitions are one and the same, they are heard together and disposed of by way of a common order.

3. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners were employed as regular Gang Masdoors on Nominal Muster Roll basis from August, 1984 under the third respondent and were terminated from service by the third respondent during the year 1989. Aggrieved by the same, they raised industrial dispute as against the third respondent in I.D.Nos.132, 133, 134 and 131 of 1997 respectively, on the file of the Principal Labour Court, Chennai. The Labour Court passed award dated 15.12.2003 in favour of the petitioners by holding that the petitioners are entitled to the relief of reinstatement in service with backwages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits.

4. The further case of the petitioners is that aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court dated 15.12.2003, the third respondent filed W.P.Nos.25537, 25538, 25540 and 25536 of 2005 respectively, before this Court as against the petitioners and this Court vide order dated 23.03.2006 dismissed the said writ petitions. Subsequently, the petitioners were reinstated in service during the year 2010 by the third respondent. Challenging the order of this Court dated 23.03.2006, the third respondent filed W.A.Nos.1719, 1720, 1722 and 1718 of 2011 respectively, before the Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court and the Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 19.01.2012 dismissed the said writ appeals. Thereafter, the petitioners were appointed as fresh sanitary workers in the third respondent Municipality during the year 2012.

5. The further case of the petitioners is that thereafter, the petitioners made representations dated 10.02.2015, 10.02.2015, 10.02.2015 and 10.07.2015 respectively, to the respondents seeking to regularize their service from the date of initial appointment and since the said representations were not considered, the petitioners in W.P.No.27100 of 2016 filed W.P.No.31730 of 2015 and the petitioner in W.P.No.26879 of 2016 filed W.P.No.77 of 2016 before this Court and this Court vide order dated 07.10.2015 and 05.01.2016 respectively, directed the third respondent to consider the representation of the petitioners after taking note of the award passed by the Principal Labour Court, Chennai in I.D.Nos.132, 133, 134 and 131 of 1997 respectively, and to forward necessary proposal to the first respondent through the second respondent. However, the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioners and regularising their services from the date on which they were appointed in regular service i.e., 03.10.2012, was passed. Challenging the same, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that admittedly, the petitioners were employed as regular Gang Masdoors on Nominal Muster Roll basis from August, 1984 under the third respondent and were terminated from service by the third respondent during the year 1989. Aggrieved by the same, they raised industrial dispute as against the third respondent in I.D.Nos.132, 133, 134 and 131 of 1997 respectively, on the file of the Principal Labour Court, Chennai. The Labour Court passed award dated 15.12.2003 in favour of the petitioners by holding that the petitioners are entitled to the relief of reinstatement in service with backwages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits.

7. Th