A.K.Banerjee, J. - (1.) Writ petitioners were appointed on temporary basis by the Food Corporation of India for stitching gunny bags in the year 1988. Although the writ petitioners are working therein since 1988, In 1991 they came before this Court for regularisation of their services. As and by way of interim order, this Court protected the interest of both the writ petitioners by directing the concerned authority to employ them as they were doing as casual worker so long the writ petition is not disposed of. Although an application for vacating the interim order has been made in the 1995, no step was taken for having the said application heard. Mr. Mitra appearing for the writ petitioner submits that since 1988 upto 91 and thereafter by virtue of ad-interim both the writ petitioners are working without any interruption Mr. Mitra has cited several decisions of the Apex Court in support of his contention. Mr. Mitra has also drawn my attention to an order passed on August 10, 2000 by the Apex Court directing the same respondents to absorb 13 casual labours who are similarly circumstanced with the present writ petitioners. Considering the peculiar nature of particular case, the Apex Court Categorically made it clear that those decisions would not be considered as precedent. Hence I have bot dealt with those cases in detail. However, the latest two Supreme Court decisions cited by Mr. Mitra fit, in this case. The first one is the case reported in AIR 1999 SC 2577, India Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd and Anr. v. Shramik Sena and Ors. The relevant paragraph being paragraph 29 of the said judgement is quoted below :- "In this appeal, the workmen have questioned the conditions that have been imposed by the workmen. They contend that once the Court comes to the conclusion that the workmen are in face the employees of the management, there is no occasion to imposed these conditions. We are unable to agree with that the initial appointments of these workmen are not in accordance with the rules governing the appointments or the established policy of recruitment of the management. The said recruitment could also be in contravention of the various statutory orders including the instrumentality of the state and has an obligation to conform to the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In spite of the same the services of the Court not as a matter of right of the workmen arising under any statute but with a view to cradicate unfair labour practices and in equity to undo social injustice and as a measure of labour welfare. Therefore, it is necessary that in this process suitable guidelines or conditions be laid down at the time of Court issuing directions to regularise the services of the workmen so concerned depending upon the facts of each practice in the earlier cases of regularisation and we do not find any reason to differ from the same, and the same is dismissed but with cost."
(2.) The other case has been reported in AIR 2000 page 405. Paragraph 25 of the said judgment is also relevant herein and the same is quoted below :- "However, we want to give an opportunity to the appellants in the interest of justice and to balance the equities between the parties to come forward to accept and act on the first option given in the additional affidavit, as extracted above, and absorb the Company paid staff working both under the Court Liquidator in the Calcutta High Court by framing a Scheme modelled on the 1978 scheme within six months. In other words, we stay the operation of the Judgment of the High Court under appeal and the order in W. P. (C) No. 473/1988 for a period of six months to enable the appellants to frame the Scheme as suggested above and to give effect to it, failing which the judgments under appeal and the order in w. P. (C) No. 473/1988 will stand confirmed."
(3.) Mr. Kamal Chattapadhyay ld. Advocate appearing for the FCI has submitted that the organisation does not require the services of the writ petitioners on regular basis. They are needed only at the procurement seasons. It has also been contended by Mr. Chattapadhyay that very appointment of both the writ petitioners is contrary to the recrument rules. Hence their services cannot be regularised. In support of his contention Mr. Chattapadhyay has cited two Apex Court decisions. One reported in 1996 Vol. 2 Supreme Court Cases page 341 and the other reported in AIR 1995 S.C. page 962. In both these cases the Supreme Court rejected the plea of regularisation of the ground that the Public Service Commission has been by-passed by the recruitment authority and since the very appointment was Contrary to the said recruitment rules, question of regularisation cannot be considered.;