We also make it clear to the private individual
respondents that such determination will not be
available for further challenge and must put a quietus
to the dispute and the benefit, if any, would also go
to any of the respondents alone before us and not to
open another pandoras box after three decades. The
scope of inquiry before learned Judge who would go into
it would be to only verify whether the list prepared in
pursuance of the settlement of 1987 and the consequent
advertisement of 1st August, 1988 does or does not
contain the name of any casual/daily wage employees. If
it does not, that is the end of the matter so far as
the private individual 9 respondents are concerned. If,
however, findings are that there were some such
employees, then the benefit would be available only to
the extent of the number of such persons found and that
too if the respondents also would have made it to the
list by their merit in the list of the temporary
employees. In case any such candidates are found, then
the learned Judge would take a call as to what would be
the compensation to be paid to such persons as there is
no question of now giving them employment. The remit is
confined to this aspect alone making the view to be
taken by the learned Judge final and thus making it
clear that no further challenge in this behalf will be
entertained from any of the parties or any third party
now seeking to claim any right.
