Held, no regularization even in respect of a workman under Industrial Dispute Act is permissible unless the contingencies of the law is satisfied, namely, appointment following the rule, appointment in a post and appointment for a long continuous period. If the regularization is done on breach of those settled legal position, surely it is coming within the ambit of error in law. Judicial review in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 relating to challenge of any award passed by Industrial Tribunal, accordingly, is contoured and limited only on the issue of jurisdictional ground and also on the ground of error of law. In the instant case, from the decision under challenge in the writ application passed by the learned Tribunal below, it appears that the Tribunal did not answer by any findings as to why workmen were legally entitled to be absorbed permanently on considering the settled legal position of law that absorption and/or regularization are not the mode of permanent appointment. Even the reasoning as advanced, namely, "unfair labour practice", it also does not support the decision to regularize in absence of any statutory provision for regularization of service of the workmen under the four corners of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. Therefore, writ is maintainable.
