The main legal point established in the judgment is that appointments should be made in accordance with rules, and the eligibility and qualification of employees for regularization must be considered. The judgment also emphasizes the need for adherence to statutory provisions and executive instructions governing conditions of service.

( 1 ) IN all these writ petitions common questions of facts and law are involved. The impugned award of the labour court dated 30. 1. 1992 has been challenged on various grounds by the State. C. M. W. P. Nos. 21684-87 of 1992 and W. P. No. 32500 of 1992 have been filed challenging the order of reinstatement, while C. M. W. P. No. 21688 of 1992 has been filed against the direction given by the same award for regularization of the services of the workmen. C. M. W. P. No. 16710 of 1999 has been filed by the workmen for seeking direction to the District Collector, Meerut, to make the recovery as per the recovery certificates Issued by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, meerut, on various dates in execution of the award dated 30. 1. 1992. The petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.

( 2 ) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to these petitions are that the respondent workmen raised an Industrial dispute and the appropriate Government vide order dated 17th August, 1987, made a reference to the labour court as to whether the termination of services of the said workmen w. e. f. 16th August, 1986 and 5. 1. 1987 was in accordance with law and if not, to what relief they are entitled to and further whether the workmen were entitled to regularization of their services? In pursuance to these references, the workmen filed claim petitions contending that they had been in service for not less than six years continuously and their services had been terminated in violation of provisions of Section 6n of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called Act, 1947) and they had worked for 240 days in a calendar year counting backward from the date of termination and also claimed regularization after reinstatement. The management contested the claims denying the averments made by the workmen contending that the workmen had been employed on the posts which were funded out from the contingency fund ; they have been appointed Illegally by a person having no authority to appoint and their termination after the completion of the work did not attract the provisions of Section 6n of the act, 1947.

( 3 ) IN view of the pleadings, the parties were permitted to lead evidence, and after considering the same, the labour court came to the conclusion that the workmen had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year counting backward from the date of termination ; their services had been terminated without following the statutory provisions of the Act, 1947, and in view of their above pleadings the award was made reinstating the workmen with all consequential benefits including the back wages and a further direction to frame a scheme for their regularization within the stipulated period vide award dated 30. 1. 1992. Hence, the first set of writ petitions has been filed challenging the termination order. Writ Petition No. 21684 of 1992 has been filed against the direction issued for regularization. As the award was not implemented, the workmen approached the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Meerut and the recovery certificates had been issued by him to recover the amount but the District Collector, Meerut, did not make the recovery. C. M. W. P. No. 16710 of 1999 has been filed by the workmen to issue direction to the district Collector, Meerut, to make recovery in pursuance of the said recovery certificates.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the parties have made same submission which had been made before the labour court. In a limited jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, there is very much limited scope of interference on finding of facts and the learned Standing Counsel miserably failed to show that the findings recorded by the labour court are perverse being based on no evidence or contrary to the evidence on record. Thus, no interference is called for. However, the labour court has not considered the issue at all as to whether during this period, the workmen had gainfully been employed anyw