Reserved Judgment THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 743 of 2006. Ghanshyam Sabta Son Mahadev, Resident of Village Badoli, Post Swala, District Champawat(Earlier District Pithoragarh). … Petitioner. Vs. 1. Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, Haldwani, District Nainital, State of Uttaranchal. 2. Chief Engineer, Hill Region, U.P. State Electricity Board, Nainital. 3. Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Pithoragarh. 4. Executive Engineer, Uttaranchal Power Corporation, Electricity Distribution Division, Pithoragarh. 5. Chief Managing Director, Uttaranchal Power Corporation, Dehradun. …Respondents. WITH (1) Writ Petition (M/S) No. 747 of 2006. Hem Chandra Thwal, Son of Late Sri Bhavani Datt, Resident of Village Badoli, Post Swala, District Champawat (Earlier District Pithoragarh). … Petitioner. Vs. 1. Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Haldwani, District Nainital, State of Uttaranchal. 2. Chief Engineer, Hill Region, U.P. State Electricity Board, Nainital. 3. Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Pithoragarh. 4. Executive Engineer, Uttaranchal Power Corporation, Electricity Distribution Division, Pithoragarh. 5. Chief Managing Director, Uttaranchal Power Corporation, Dehradun. …Respondents. (2) Writ Petition (M/S) No. 790 of 2006. Basant Ballabh Joshi, Son of Late Sri Khelanand Joshi, Resident of Village Kuleti, Champawat, District Champawat (Earlier District Pithoragarh). ….. Petitioner. Vs. 1. Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Haldwani, District Nainital, State of Uttaranchal. 2. Chief Engineer, Hill Region, U.P. State Electricity Board, Nainital. 3. Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Pithoragarh. 2 4. Executive Engineer, Uttaranchal Power Corporation, Electricity Distribution Division, Pithoragarh. 5. Chief Managing Director, Uttaranchal Power Corporation, Dehradun. ….Respondents. (3) Writ Petition (M/S) No. 756 of 2006. Ramesh Chandra Son of Late Sri Bhavdev, Resident of Village Badoli, Post Swala, District Champawat (Earlier District Pithoragarh). ….. Petitioner. Vs. 1. Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Haldwani, District Nainital, State of Uttaranchal. 2. Chief Engineer, Hill Region, U.P. State Electricity Board, Nainital. 3. Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Pithoragarh. 4. Executive Engineer, Uttaranchal Power Corporation, Electricity Distribution Division, Pithoragarh. 5. Chief Managing Director, Uttaranchal Power Corporation, Dehradun. ….Respondents. (4) Writ Petition (M/S) No. 755 of 2006. Ishwari Datt Sabta, son of Sri Lokmani, Resident of Village Badoli, Post Swala, District Champawat (Earlier District Pithoragarh). ….. Petitioner. Vs. 1. Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Haldwani, District Nainital, State of Uttaranchal. 2. Chief Engineer, Hill Region, U.P. State Electricity Board, Nainital. 3. Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Pithoragarh. 4. Executive Engineer, Uttaranchal Power Corporation, Electricity Distribution Division, Pithoragarh. 5. Chief Managing Director, Uttaranchal Power Corporation, Dehradun. ….Respondents. (5) Writ Petition (M/S) No. 754 of 2006. Durga Datt son of Sri Nand Ram, Resident of Village Badoli, Post Swala, District Champawat (Earlier District Pithoragarh) ….. Petitioner. Vs. 1. Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Haldwani, District Nainital, State of Uttaranchal. 2. Chief Engineer, Hill Region, U.P. State Electricity Board, Nainital. 3. Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Pithoragarh. 3 4. Executive Engineer, Uttaranchal Power Corporation, Electricity Distribution Division, Pithoragarh. 5. Chief Managing Director, Uttaranchal Power Corporation, Dehradun. ….Respondents. (6) Writ Petition (M/S) No. 752 of 2006. Madho Singh son of Late Sri Nath Singh, Resident of Village Chaura, Post Champawat, District Champawat (Earlier District Pithoragarh). ….. Petitioner. Vs. 1. Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Haldwani, District Nainital, State of Uttaranchal. 2. Chief Engineer, Hill Region, U.P. State Electricity Board, Nainital. 3. Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Pithoragarh. 4. Executive Engineer, Uttaranchal Power Corporation, Electricity Distribution Division, Pithoragarh. 5. Chief Managing Director, Uttaranchal Power Corporation, Dehradun. ….Respondents. (7) Writ Petition (M/S) No. 751 of 2006. Suresh Chandra son of Late Sri Mani, Resident of Village Badoli, Post Swala, District Champawat (Earlier District Pithoragarh). ….. Petitioner. Vs. 1. Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Haldwani, District Nainital, State of Uttaranchal. 2. Chief Engineer, Hill Region, U.P. State Electricity Board, Nainital. 3. Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Pithoragarh. 4. Executive Engineer, Uttaranchal Power Corporation, Electricity Distribution Division, Pithoragarh. 5. Chief Managing Director, Uttaranchal Power Corporation, Dehradun. ….Respondents. (8) Writ Petition (M/S) No. 749 of 2006. Devi Datt son of Sri Narottam, Resident of Village Badoli, Post Swala, District Champawat (Earlier District Pithoragarh). ….. Petitioner. Vs. 1. Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Haldwani, District Nainital, State of Uttaranchal. 2. Chief Engineer, Hill Region, U.P. State Electricity Board, Nainital. 3. Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Pithoragarh. 4 4. Executive Engineer, Uttaranchal Power Corporation, Electricity Distribution Division, Pithoragarh. 5. Chief Managing Director, Uttaranchal Power Corporation, Dehradun. ….Respondents. (9) Writ Petition (M/S) No. 748 of 2006. Kheem Singh son of Sri Bahadur Singh, Resident of Village Charua, Tehsil Champawat, District Champawat (Earlier District Pithoragarh) ….. Petitioner. Vs. 1. Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Haldwani, District Nainital, State of Uttaranchal. 2. Chief Engineer, Hill Region, U.P. State Electricity Board, Nainital. 3. Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Pithoragarh. 4. Executive Engineer, Uttaranchal Power Corporation, Electricity Distribution Division, Pithoragarh. 5. Chief Managing Director, Uttaranchal Power Corporation, Dehradun. ….Respondents. (10) Writ Petition (M/S) No. 750 of 2006. Rudra Mani son of Khimanand, Resident of Village Badoli, Post Swala, District Champawat (Earlier District Pithoragarh) ….. Petitioner. Vs. 1. Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Haldwani, District Nainital, State of Uttaranchal. 2. Chief Engineer, Hill Region, U.P. State Electricity Board, Nainital. 3. Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Pithoragarh. 4. Executive Engineer, Uttaranchal Power Corporation, Electricity Distribution Division, Pithoragarh. 5. Chief Managing Director, Uttaranchal Power Corporation, Dehradun. ….Respondents. (11) Writ Petition (M/S) No. 746 of 2006. Leeladhar son of Sri Kishan Datt, Resident of Village Swala, District Champawat (Earlier District Pithoragarh). ….. Petitioner. Vs. 1. Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Haldwani, District Nainital, State of Uttaranchal. 2. Chief Engineer, Hill Region, U.P. State Electricity Board, Nainital. 5 3. Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Pithoragarh. 4. Executive Engineer, Uttaranchal Power Corporation, Electricity Distribution Division, Pithoragarh. 5. Chief Managing Director, Uttaranchal Power Corporation, Dehradun. ….Respondents. (12) Writ Petition (M/S) No. 745 of 2006. Kunwar Singh son of Sri Madho Singh, Resident of Village Chaura, Post Champawat, District Champawat (Earlier District Pithoragarh). ….. Petitioner. Vs. 1. Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Haldwani, District Nainital, State of Uttaranchal. 2. Chief Engineer, Hill Region, U.P. State Electricity Board, Nainital. 3. Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Pithoragarh. 4. Executive Engineer, Uttaranchal Power Corporation, Electricity Distribution Division, Pithoragarh. 5. Chief Managing Director, Uttaranchal Power Corporation, Dehradun. ….Respondents. (13) Writ Petition (M/S) No. 744 of 2006. Prem Ballabh son of Chunamani resident of Village Badoli, P.O. Swala, District Champawat (Earlier District Pithogarh) ….. Petitioner. Vs. 1. Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Haldwani, District Nainital, State of Uttaranchal. 2. Chief Engineer, Hill Region, U.P. State Electricity Board, Nainital. 3. Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Pithoragarh. 4. Executive Engineer, Uttaranchal Power Corporation, Electricity Distribution Division, Pithoragarh. 5. Chief Managing Director, Uttaranchal Power Corporation, Dehradun. ….Respondents. (14) Writ Petition (M/S) No. 739 of 2006. Bhuwan Chandra Son of Sri Ganga Datt, resident of Village Badoli, Post Swala, District Champawat (Earlier District Pithoragarh). ….. Petitioner. Vs. 1. Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Haldwani, District Nainital, State of Uttaranchal. 6 2. Chief Engineer, Hill Region, U.P. State Electricity Board, Nainital. 3. Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Pithoragarh. 4. Executive Engineer, Uttaranchal Power Corporation, Electricity Distribution Division, Pithoragarh. 5. Chief Managing Director, Uttaranchal Power Corporation, Dehradun. ….Respondents. (15) Writ Petition (M/S) No. 737 of 2006. Ram Singh son of Sri Mohan Singh resident of Village Charua, Tehsil Champawat, District Champawat(Earlier District Pithoragarh). ….. Petitioner. Vs. 1. Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Haldwani, District Nainital, State of Uttaranchal. 2. Chief Engineer, Hill Region, U.P. State Electricity Board, Nainital. 3. Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Pithoragarh. 4. Executive Engineer, Uttaranchal Power Corporation, Electricity Distribution Division, Pithoragarh. 5. Chief Managing Director, Uttaranchal Power Corporation, Dehradun. ….Respondents. Mr. Rajesh Pandey, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Vijay Bhatt, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, Brief Holder, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. Mr. B.D.Upadhyay, Advocate, learned counsel for the UPCL- respondents No. 2 to 5. (16) Writ Petition (M/S) No. 578 of 2006. Ghanshyam Pandey, S/o Sri Parmanand Pande, R/o Village Saghri, P.O. Chharandev District Pithoragarh. ….. Petitioner. Vs. 1. Presiding Officer Labour Court Uttaranchal Haldwani, Nainital. 2. Chief Engineer, Hill Area U.P. State Electricity Board, Nainital. 3. Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Pithoragarh. 4. Executive Engineer Uttaranchal Power Corporation Ltd. Electricity Distribution Division, Pithoragarh. 5. Chief Managing Director, Uttaranchal Power Corporation, Dehradun. ….. Respondents. Mr. B.D. Pande and Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Advocates, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, Brief Holder, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. Mr. B.D.Upadhyay, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 5. (17) Writ Petition (M/S) No. 490 of 2006. Govind Singh Mehta, S/o Kalyan Singh Mehta, R/o Village Ghanghal, P.O. Thal, District Pithoragarh. ….. Petitioner. Vs. 7 1. Presiding Officer Labour Court Uttaranchal, Haldwani, Nainital. 2. Chief Engineer, Hill Area U.P. State Electricity Board, Nainital. 3. Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Pithoragarh. 4. Executive Engineer Uttaranchal Power Corporation Ltd. Electricity Distribution Division, Pithoragarh. 5. Chief Managing Director, Uttaranchal Power Corporation, Dehradun. ….Respondents. Mr. B.D. Pande and Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Advocates, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, Brief Holder, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. Mr. B.D.Upadhyay, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 5. and (18) Writ Petition (M/S) No. 489 of 2006. Harish Chandra Joshi, S/o Sri Badri Dutt Joshi, R/o Village Dabri, P.O. Siling District Pithoragarh. ….. Petitioner. Vs. 1. Presiding Officer Labour Court Uttaranchal, Haldwani, Nainital. 2. Chief Engineer, Hill Area U.P. State Electricity Board, Nainital. 3. Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Pithoragarh. 4. Executive Engineer Uttaranchal Power Corporation Ltd. Electricity Distribution Division, Pithoragarh. 5. Chief Managing Director, Uttaranchal Power Corporation, Dehradun. ….Respondents. Mr. B.D. Pande and Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Advocates, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, Brief Holder, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. Mr. B.D.Upadhyay, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 5. Date September 23 , 2010 Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Since the controversy involved in all the writ petitions is similar, therefore, for the sake of convenience, all the abovementioned writ petitions are being decided by this common judgment. 2. By means of these writ petitions, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned awards passed by the respondent no. 1-Industrial Tribunal (for short the Tribunal), which were published on 27-4-2006 whereby it has been held by the Labour Court, Haldwani that the petitioners were not in service on the alleged date of termination of their services, therefore, 8 the reference was held to be defective and accordingly the claim of the petitioners has been rejected by separate orders. 3. Separate reference was made by the State Government under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act 1947 for adjudication by the Tribunal in each case as detailed hereunder:- In Writ Petition (M/S) No. 743 of 2006, the following reference was made:- Whether the termination of services of Ghanshyam Sabta w.e.f. 31-12-1986 by the employer was proper and legal? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled to get with its particulars? In Writ Petition (M/S) No. 747 of 2006, the following reference was made:- Whether the termination of services of Hem Chandra Thwal w.e.f. 13-12-1985 by the employer was proper and legal? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled to get with its particulars? In Writ Petition (M/S) No. 790 of 2006, the following reference was made:- Whether the termination of services of Basant Ballabh Joshi w.e.f. 10-11-1985 by the employer was proper and legal? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled to get with its particulars? In Writ Petition (M/S) No. 756 of 2006, the following reference was made:- Whether the termination of services of Ramesh Chandra w.e.f. 30-12-1986 by the employer was proper and legal? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled to get with its particulars? In Writ Petition (M/S) No. 755 of 2006, the following reference was made:- Whether the termination of services of Ishwari Datt w.e.f. 15-1-1984 by the employer was proper and legal? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled to get with its particulars? In Writ Petition (M/S) No. 754 of 2006, the following reference was made:- 9 Whether the termination of services of Durga Datt w.e.f. 20-12-1986 by the employer was proper and legal? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled to get with its particulars? In Writ Petition (M/S) No. 752 of 2006, the following reference was made:- Whether the termination of services of Madho Singh w.e.f. 28-12-1987 by the employer was proper and legal? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled to get with its particulars? In Writ Petition (M/S) No. 751 of 2006, the following reference was made:- Whether the termination of services of Suresh Chandra w.e.f. 31-12-1986 by the employer was proper and legal? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled to get with its particulars? In Writ Petition (M/S) No. 749 of 2006, the following reference was made:- Whether the termination of services of Devi Datt w.e.f. 25-12-1984 by the employer was proper and legal? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled to get with its particulars? In Writ Petition (M/S) No. 748 of 2006, the following reference was made:- Whether the termination of services of Kheem Singh w.e.f. 15-3-1984 by the employer was proper and legal? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled to get with its particulars? In Writ Petition (M/S) No. 750 of 2006, the following reference was made:- Whether the termination of services of Rudra Mani w.e.f. 10-2-1986 by the employer was proper and legal? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled to get with its particulars? In Writ Petition (M/S) No. 746 of 2006, the following reference was made:- Whether the termination of services of Leeladhar w.e.f. 10-2-1986 by the employer was proper and legal? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled to get with its particulars? 10 In Writ Petition (M/S) No. 745 of 2006, the following reference was made:- Whether the termination of services of Kunwar Singh w.e.f. 10-1-1985 by the employer was proper and legal? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled to get with its particulars? In Writ Petition (M/S) No. 744 of 2006, the following reference was made:- Whether the termination of services of Prem Ballabh w.e.f. 2-12-1986 by the employer was proper and legal? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled to get with its particulars? In Writ Petition (M/S) No. 739 of 2006, the following reference was made:- Whether the termination of services of Bhuwan Chandra w.e.f. 30-12-1986 by the employer was proper and legal? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled to get with its particulars? In Writ Petition (M/S) No. 737 of 2006, the following reference was made:- Whether the termination of services of Ram Singh w.e.f. 20-12-1985 by the employer was proper and legal? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled to get with its particulars? In Writ Petition (M/S) No. 578 of 2006, the following reference was made:- Whether the termination of services of Ghanshyam Pande w.e.f. 10-12-1985 by the employer was proper and legal? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled to get with its particulars? In Writ Petition (M/S) No. 490 of 2006, the following reference was made:- Whether the termination of services of Govind Singh Mehta w.e.f. 15-12-1986 by the employer was proper and legal? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled to get with its particulars? In Writ Petition (M/S) No. 489 of 2006, the following reference was made:- 11 Whether the termination of services of Harish Chandra Joshi w.e.f. 10-1-1985 by the employer was proper and legal? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled to get with its particulars? 4. According to the petitioners, they were engaged on muster roll as daily wager (Coollie) under the employment of respondent no.2- Chief Engineer, Hill Region, U.P. State Electricity Board, Nainital on 1-4-1982, 5-2-1979, 5-1-1977, 2-4-1980, 1-3-1977, 15-1-1981, 1-1-1972, 1-1-1982, 20-3-1977, 5-2-1979, 15-3-1982, 2-3- 1982, 5-2-1979, 28-4-1982, 20-4-1980, 2-1-1978, 2-3-1981, 1-10-1979 and 2-2-1979 respectively and they remained continuously in service till the date of their termination i.e. 31-12-1986, 13-12-1985, 10-11- 1985, 30-12-1986, 15-1-1984, 20-12-1986, 28-12-1987, 31-12-1986, 25-12-1984, 15-3-1984, 10-2-1986, 10-2-1986, 10-1-1985, 2-12-1986, 30-12-1986, 20-12-1985, 10-12-1985, 15-12-1986 and 10-1-1985 respectively. They were being paid monthly wages through muster roll. When the petitioners persuaded their case for regularisation, they were not given work by the employer and they were terminated from service contrary to rules. It is further pleaded that the work is available with the respondent-department and the petitioners were illegally removed from service in order to deprive them from regularisation. It has further been pleaded that the petitioners were directed to appear for the interview being conducted by the Committee constituted for regularisation of the muster roll labourers, but they were illegally not allowed to participate in the interview and were, thus, deprived of their valuable rights. The respondent no. 3 has pleaded before respondent no.1-Tribunal that after the year 1979, there was total prohibition to engage the muster roll labourer. According to the petitioners, the Circular No. 4822-Ara-9/Ra VP/96-24 NG/96 kdated 28.11.1996, which has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition, was issued by the Department for regularisation of their services. It is also pleaded that a D.O. Letter was also written on 24-3- 1987 by the Electricity Distribution Division of Electricity Board Pithoragarh to the Superintending Engineer, Electricity Distribution 12 Circle, Ranikhet, along with a list of muster roll employees of Electricity Distribution Division Pithoragarh, which is annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. It is also pleaded that the aforesaid D.O. letter dated 24-3-1987 was in continuation of D.O. letter dated 6- 3-1987, by which a list of muster roll employees, who had completed more than 240 days in a calendar year, was supplied. They were fully qualified for regularisation before hand. It is further pleaded that the cut off date, mentioned in the Government Order dated 28-11-1996 was 4-5-1990 for consideration of daily wagers for regularisation. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the contesting respondents it has been specifically pleaded that no daily wager had been engaged on muster roll after 1979 since there was a ban by the Government. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that the learned Tribunal has given a totally perverse finding in para 10 of the impugned awards. As per list (Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition), there is mention of some of the petitioners, who had worked for more than 240 days in all and not in a calendar year. It is clear that on the relevant date the petitioners were in service. Thus the finding of the learned Tribunal is wholly illegal and not based on record and is also misconceived. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material placed before this Court including the counter version as well as rejoinder affidavit. 8. It may be mentioned at the outset that the scope of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is limited. This Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot sit like a court of appeal and cannot re-appreciate or re-evaluate the evidence so as to arrive at a different conclusion. Only perversity in the impugned 13 order can be seen to find out whether there is a case of mis-reading of evidence by the Tribunal. 9. The Apex Court in the case of Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and others [(2003) 6 Supreme Court Cases, 675 has held that “On the other hand, supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When a subordinate court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction.” 10. In the case “Ranjeet Singh Vs. Ravi Prakash” [(2004) 3 S.C.C. page 682], the Apex Court has observed inter alia in paragraph 4 of the judgment that “An error which needs to be established by lengthy and complicated arguments or by indulging in a long-drawn process of reasoning, cannot possibly be an error available for correction by writ of certiorari. If it is reasonably possible to form two opinions on the same material, the finding arrived at one way or the other, cannot be called a patent error. As to the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution also, it has been held in Surya Dev Rai that the jurisdiction was not available to be exercised for indulging in reappreciation or evaluation of evidence or correcting the errors in drawing inferences like a court of appeal.” 11. For a just decision of the case, a reference to the Government Order/letter No. 4822-Ara.-9/Ra.Vi.Pa./96-24 NG/96 dated November 28, 1996 is necessary. The very first paragraph of this G.O. reads as under:- “mi;qDr fo"k; ifj"knh; i= la0 1124 dkfeZd-9@jkfoi@96&72 ds 9 ch@92 fnukad 22&4&96 ds vuqdze esa eq>s ;g dgus dk funs’k gqvk gS fd ifj"kn dh fofHkUu bdkb;ksa esa eLVj jksy@nSfud osru ij dk;Zjr deZpkfj;ksa dks fu;fer fd;s 14 tkus ds lEcU/k esa lE;d fopkjksijkUr ifj"kn us iqu% ;g fu.kZ; fy;k gS fd fnukad 4&5&90 ds iwoZ ifj"kn esa vk;s ,oa orZeku esa dk;Zjr leLr eLVj jksy@nSfud osru ij dk;Zjr deZpkfj;ksa dks fu;fer fjDr inksa ij lsok;ksftr dj fy;k tk;s ,oa bl fufer fo|qr lsok vk;ksx] {ks=h; eq[;ky;@ifj;kstuk Lrj ij rRdky p;u ijh{kk vk;ksftr djus dh O;oLFkk lqfuf’pr djsaA ” 12. I have perused the D.O. letter No. 9940/EDD(P)/Muster Roll, dated 24-3-1987 which was sent by the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Pithoragarh to the Superintending Engineer, Electricity Distribution Circle, U.P. State Electricity Board, Ranikhet. This D.O. Letter has been relied upon by the petitioners themselves. A careful perusal of the last paragraph of this D.O. letter itself shows that the list enclosed by the Executive Engineer is that of the Ex-Muster Roll employees. This letter itself goes to show that the petitioners were not on muster roll in the year 1987. Moreover, this D.O. letter further shows that the ex-muster roll employees had in fact worked for more than 240 days in all during the past many years. The stand of the petitioners that they had completed more than 240 days in one calendar year is not convincing and is also against the document, which has been relied upon by them. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners had worked for more than 240 days and were very much working on the relevant date, i.e. 24-3-1987, which is the date of issue of D.O. letter, referred to above, is not tenable at all. 13. In addition to above, it is crystal clear from the Government Order dated 28-11-1996 that there is a condition precedent that the case for regularisation against regular vacant posts of only those muster roll employees was to be considered who had been engaged prior to 4-5-1990 and were working at present on muster roll on the date of issuance of G.O. dated 28-11-1996. According to the petitioners’ own case, their services were terminated by the employer on the dates, referred to above. As such none of the petitioners is admittedly working even on 4-5-1990 and thereafter when the aforesaid Government Order was issued. 15 14. The learned Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that the disputes were raised by the petitioners belatedly and the references were also defective on the ground that the petitioners are claiming that they were denied the work without applying the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as per reference. It was also held by the learned Tribunal that as per pleadings the grievance of the petitioners is that they were entitled for regularisation since they had worked for more than 240 days prior to issuance of the Government Order dated 28-11-1996. 15. By a perusal of the impugned awards, it reveals that the learned Tribunal has categorically dealt with the provisions of law and mentioned in the