ORDER
Ajit Singh, J.
1. This order passed in Miscellaneous Petition No. 2432/1989 Smt. Sarifunisha and seven Ors. v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited and two Ors.) shall also govern the disposal of Writ Petition No. 1692/1996 (Visnhu Prasad Mishra and 11 Ors. v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited and two Ors.) and Writ Petition No.1074/2003 (Smt. Prabha Singh and four Ors. v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited and two Ors.).
In Writ Petition Nos. 1692/1996 and 1074/2003 the names of Smt. Prabha Singh, Omkar Singh, Ajay Singh, Abhay Singh and Arun Singh have been brought on record pursuant to an order of this Court as legal representatives of the deceased petitioner Dinesh Kumar Singh.
2. In Miscellaneous Petition No. 2432/1989 and Writ Petition No. 1074/2003 the petitioners have essentially prayed for a direction against the respondents for paying them the same salary that is being paid to other teachers along with perquisites such as leave travel concession, house accommodation, free electricity, free coal, conveyance allowance, free medical-aid, etc. together with the arrears from the respective dates of their appointment. The petitioners have not pressed for the second relief mentioned in these petitions for a direction against the respondents to regularize their services as, during their pendency, their services have been regularized/confirmed. In fact, all the petitioners of Miscellaneous Petition No.2432/1989 but for petitioner no.1 Smt. Sarifunisha have been promoted as Upper Division Teachers by order dated 30.6.1994 Annexure P17, passed by the South Eastern Coalfields Limited Education Society (respondent no.3). The learned Counsel for petitioners has informed that Smt. Sarifunisha left her services in the year 1996.
3. In Writ Petition No. 1692/1996 all the petitioners but for Smt. Sarifunisha are same as in Miscellaneous Petition No. 2432/1989 and Writ Petition No. 1074/2003. In this petition they have prayed for a direction against the respondents for payment of their salaries due to them since June 1995. The learned Counsel for petitioners has fairly admitted that the petitioners have been paid their salaries up to August 2003 on Madhya Pradesh State Government Pay Scale but thereafter nothing has been paid.
4. Associated Cement Company Limited (in short, “ACC”) was the owner of Kotma/Nowrozabad Colliery (hereinafter referred to as “coal mine”). It established and managed a Junior High School for the children of workmen, staff and officers at coal mine. According to Clause 9(a) of the constitution, Annexure P1, of that school the school teaching staff, including head master, were entitled for pay and other allowances admissible under the Coal Wage Board Award. On the appointed date i.e. 1.5.1973 the right, title and interest of the ACC, in relation to its coal mine, vested in the Central Government under section 3 of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 (in short, “the Act”). The Central Government, directed under section 5 of the Act, that the right, title and interest of the coal mine vested in it shall vest in the Government company i.e. Coal India Limited. Later, the right, title and interest in the coal mine got vested in its subsidiary the Western Coalfields Limited (in short, “WCL) which has now been re-designated as South Eastern Coalfields Limited (in short, “SECL).
5. The case of petitioners is that Junior High School of the ACC too was taken over by the WCL and from 1973 up to February 1979 it was being run and managed by the management of the WCL. The management even appointed petitioners Smt. Sarifunisha vide order dated 26.8.1977 Annnexure I(1); Smt. Pushpa Sharma vide orders dated 7.12.1976 Annexure P9 and dated 24.8.1977 Annexure P10 and Smt. Rama Ray vide order 15.2.1976 Annexure I(2) as teachers in that school on certain terms and conditions. According to petitioners, in the year 1979 the management of WCL decided to form a society consisting mainly of its officers for proper management, supervision/control and expansion of the educational institution already established by the WCL and for exploring the possibility to open other education institutions. A society was, therefore, formed and registered in the month of February 1979 in the name of “Western Coalfields Limited Education Society, P. O. Dhanpuri, District Shahdol, M. P.” under the Societies Registration Act, 1973. A copy of the constitution of society is Annexure P5. The “Western Coalfields Limited Education Society” was continued under different names initially as “Shiksha Samiti Kotma Colliery” from 27.2.1986 and immediately thereafter as “South Eastern Coalfields Education Society” (respondent no.3) due to change in the management from WCL to SECL. The remaining petitioners, except Manoj Kumar, were appointed by the Society as teachers between the period 1978 up to 1992 in the school on Madhya Pradesh State Government pay scale plus Dearness Allowance and additional Dearness Allowance as admissible from time to time by the State Government. Initially, the appointment orders of petitioners were of different periods as Lower Division Teachers but now their services have been regularized/confirmed during the pendency of these petitions, and as already mentioned above except for Smt.Sharifunisha all the petitioners of Miscellaneous Petition No.2432/1989 have been promoted as Upper Division Teachers by order dated 30.6.1994 Annexure P17, passed by the Society. Petitioner Manoj Kumar was appointed as Lower Division Clerk by order dated 17.11.1992 and was re-designated as Lower Division Teacher on 9.5.1997. He too has been regularized/confirmed by order dated 21.6.1993 Annexure P9 (W.P.No.1974/2003) passed by the Soceity. According to petitioners, a bare reading of the constitution of society reveals that it is under total administrative and financial control of the management of WCL/SECL, which is their primary employer and as such WCL/SECL cannot deny its liability to pay wages due to them on the pretext that they are only the employees of the society.
6. Petitioners have referred to letter dated 5.3.1978, Annexure P2, and office order passed in March 1982, Annexure P4, by the Sub-Area Manager, WCL, to establish that after nationalization of coal mine the school was taken over by WCL administration and came under its direct control. Petitioners have filed an order dated 20.3.1982 Annexure J(4) issued by Sub-Area Manager, WCL, stating that departments of the Common Services including Junior High School shall be under the administrative control of the Officers named therein. They have also filed a memo dated 22.4.1987, Annexure K(1), written by the Senior Personnel Manager, SECL addressed to the Principal of Junior High School regarding release of the pay bill of teachers for the month of March, 1987 of the School. A letter dated 28.4.1993 Annexure P3 (W. P. No. 1692/1996), addressed by the Secretary of Society and Sub-Area Manager of SECL to the Deputy Director Education, Shahdol has been filed wherein it is stated that the school is being 100% financed by the management of SECL and, therefore, it be recognized perpetually. Petitioners, to further substantiate their submission, have relied upon Annexure P7 dated 14.8.1996 issued by the Personnel Manager of SECL certifying that Provident Fund of petitioner Smt. Pushpa Sharma was deducted from her salary for the months from March 1978 up to March 1979.
7. The petitioners have also submitted that the school was being run originally by the ACC and under the award its teachers were equated with the clerical staff of the coal mine industry for payment of wages and other service benefits and the scale of graduate teachers was equated with the pay scale of Clerk Grade I. The grievance of petitioners is that other teachers employed in the school namely; R. C. Singh, V. N. Singh, B. N. Sharma, D. R. Pandey, J. L. Garewal, R. L. Soni, Smt. L. D. Rawalkar and Smt. S. B. Madhura, who were appointed by the ACC and are performing the same work and duties, are being paid higher salary pursuant to recommendations of successive Wage Boards but the said benefit is being denied to them. The petitioners have filed a chart, Annexure B, showing the salary paid to them and another chart, Annexure C, showing the salary paid to other teachers. They have also filed the work distribution charts Annexures D and E. They have, therefore, prayed that respondents be directed to pay them the same salary which is being paid to the teachers named above as WCL/SECL is a “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and it cannot violate their fundamental rights of equality, in particular the right of equal pay for equal work. During the course of arguments, the learned Counsel for petitioners has fairly informed that with the passage of time teachers namely; R. C. Singh, V. N. Singh, B. N. Sharma, D. R. Pandey, J. L. Garewal, R. L. Soni and Smt. S. B. Madhura have retired from the school and Smt. L. D. Rawalkar will be retiring in the month of December 2007.
8. In Writ Petition No. 1692/1996 petitioners have filed documents dated 9.2.1983, Annexure P23, and dated 6.3.1985, Annexure P26, both written by the Sub-Area Manager coal mine to show that the management of WCL even controlled the sports activity of the school. In this petition, the petitioners have also filed a note sheet dated 29.1.1996, Annexure P1, of SECL which is with regard to budget of the school wherein it is stated that the Principal of Junior High School at Kotma Colliery of ACC was in the Colliery Roll and, therefore, he was getting the salary and other benefits as per the award of Wage Board which was continued even after the nationalization of coal mine. It is also stated in the note sheet that with the passage of time teachers in the school either gradually retired or opted to undertake different work and, therefore, a policy decision was taken not to appoint new teachers on Colliery Roll and that henceforth teachers will be appointed through the Education Society who will be paid salary on Madhya Pradesh State Government Pay Scale.
9. In reply, the case of the SECL management is that pursuant to the nationalization the Coal Mine at Kotma of ACC vested in the Central Government and not its school. The SECL management has averred that it has neither any connection much less the relation of employer and employee with the petitioners who are, in fact, the employees of the society over which it has no control, supervision or authority and if some officers/employees of the SECL, in their individual capacity, constituted an education society and became its members, no liability of the society can be fastened on SECL. It has denied having paid any salary to the petitioners. It has also averred that education is not the subject of the coal industry and establishment of school is not the statutory requirement. According to the SECL, the coal industry grants aid to the society out of the welfare fund as decided by the Welfare Board consisting of representatives of all the employees and management and the society is also meeting its expenditure by collecting fee from the students and ex-gratia grant given by the SECL. It has further averred that as all the petitioners but for Smt.Sarifunisha, Smt. Pushpa Sharma and Smt. Rama Ray were appointed by the society, they are not entitled for the benefits of the National Coal Wage Agreement pursuant to the recommendations of Successive Wage Boards. According to the SECL management there is no document to show that Smt. Sarifunisha, Smt. Pushpa Sharma and Smt. Rama Ray, who were appointed only for a short period, were given extension by the management of WCL after nationalization. The respondents have further submitted that since there is no post of teacher in the SECL and now new society has been constituted, no relief against them, as prayed for, can be granted. On these averments, the learned Senior counsel Shri P. S. Nair for the respondents relying upon a decision of State of Karnataka and Ors. v. KGSD Canteen Employees’ Welfare Assn. and Ors. has taken a preliminary objection that since the petitions involve the disputed questions of fact, the same are liable to be dismissed only on this ground. He has raised another objection that as the petitioners have not prayed for a direction that they be treated as employees of SECL and that society is part and parcel of SECL, no relief of equal pay for equal work and arrears of salary can be granted to them.
10. Shri N. S. Kale, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents in Writ Petition No.1692/1996 has fully supported the arguments advanced by Shri P. S. Nair. In addition, he also submitted that school is not a fixed asset within the meaning of “mine” as defined under section 2(h)(xii) of the Act and, therefore, it did not vest in the Central Government along with the Kotma Colliery of ACC. On this plea he argued that management of the WCL/SECL cannot be held as a principal employer of the teachers of that school. To support his argument, the learned senior counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. v. United Collieries Ltd. and Ors. .
11. Before proceeding to deal with the main questions, it would be convenient to decide the preliminary objections raised by Shri P. S. Nair. His one objection is that as the petitioners have not claimed any declaration that they are the employees of SECL and the society is part and parcel of SECL, no relief can be granted to them. A bare reading of the petitions reveals that the petitions proceed entirely on the basis that petitioners are the employees of SECL and the society is nothing but a limb of SECL. The relief of the petitioners is for payment of salary and equal pay for equal work against both SECL and the society. The relief claimed cannot be granted without a finding that the petitioners are the employees of SECL. Therefore, the relief of declaration that the petitioners are employees of SECL is implicit in the relief claimed by them and this objection cannot be sustained.
12. Another objection of Shri P. S. Nair is that petitioners have raised disputed questions of fact which cannot be decided in a writ jurisdiction. Normally the High Court, as a matter of discretion, declines to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution which raises disputed questions of fact and refers the petitioner to private law remedies such as a civil suit. But there are exceptions to this rule. In the present case, the parties have filed all relevant documents from which the disputed questions can be conveniently decided. The petitions have been pending since last so many years beginning from 1989 after admission and it will be too harsh to reject them on the ground that disputed questions cannot be gone into. Shri Nair has relied upon State of Karnataka and Ors. (Supra) that in such matters the High Court should not directly interfere and the disputed questions should be left to be decided in an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act. But as already stated above, this is not an inflexible rule of law and the Supreme Court itself at least in two cases, viz. Parimal Chandra Raha and Ors. v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. air 1995 SC 1666 and Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. and Anr. v. Shramik Sena and Ors. directly interfered when the relevant material was before the Court. Moreover, in the present case, the petitioners are school teachers and it is admitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that they are not “workman” within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act and cannot raise an industrial dispute. Thus, the only remedy open to the petitioners will be to file a civil suit and as already mentioned above, it will be too harsh now to dismiss these petitions by directing them to file a civil suit. I, therefore, reject this objection also.
13. The questions which call for determination in these petitions are (i) whether the petitioners are the employees of SECL and (ii) whether they are entitled for the same higher salary which is being paid to other teachers of the school on the principle of equal pay for equal work.
14. To answer the first question I refer profitably to the case of Parimal Chandra Raha and Ors. (Supra) in which the Supreme Court, relying upon its earlier decisions, held that in the fact situation of the case the canteen, which was being run by cooperative society, became a part of the establishment of LIC although the LIC had no statutory liability to maintain a canteen for its employees. In paragraph 9 of the judgment Hon’ble Sawant J., speaking for the Bench, observed:
9. What emerges from the statute law and the judicial decisions is as follows:
(i) Where, as under the provisions of the Factories Act, it is statutorily obligatory on the employer to provide and maintain canteen for the use of his employees, the canteen becomes a part of the establishment and, therefore, the workers employed in such canteen are the employees of the management.
(ii) Where, although it is not statutorily obligatory to provide a canteen, it is otherwise an obligation on the employer to provide a canteen, the canteen becomes a part of the establishment and the workers working in the canteen, the employees of the management. The obligation to provide a canteen has to be distinguished from the obligation to provide facilities to run canteen. The canteen run pursuant to the latter obligation, does not become a part of the establishment.
(iii) The obligation to provide canteen may be explicit or implicit. Where the obligation is not explicitly accepted by or cast upon the employer either by an agreement or an award etc., it may be inferred from the circumstances, and the provision of the canteen may be held to have become a part of the service conditions of the employees. Whether the provision for canteen services has become a part of the service conditions or not, is a question of fact to be determined on the facts and circumstances in each case. Where to provide canteen services has become a part of the service conditions of the employees, the canteen becomes a part of the establishment and the workers in such canteen become the employees of the management.
(iv) Whether a particular facility or service has become implicitly a part of the service conditions of the employees or not, will depend, among others, on the nature of the service/facility, the contribution the service in question makes to the efficiency of the employees and the establishment, whether the service is available as a matter of right to all the employees in their capacity as employees and nothing more, the number of employees employed in the establishment and the number of employees who avail of the service, the length of time for which the service has been continuously available, the hours during which it is available, the nature and character of management, the interest taken by the employer in providing, maintaining, supervising and controlling the service, the contribution made by the management in the form of infrastructure and funds for making the service available etc.
Thus, according to the above quoted legal propositions, even when the management was not under any statutory obligation to provide a particular service, that service can become a part of the service conditions of its employees and the establishment becomes employer of the workers providing service.
15. The petitioners could not show any legal provision under which WCL/SECL became statutorily liable to establish a school in the coal mine. However, the facts on record clearly show that the management of WCL/SECL had implicitly accepted the obligation to run the school in question for the children of its employees. These facts are:
(i) Before the nationalization of coal mine ACC had admittedly established and managed the school at its Kotma mine for the children of workmen, staff and officers of that coal mine.
(ii) After nationalization in the year 1973 the school was taken over by the management of WCL which even appointed three petitioners namely, Smt. Sarifunisha, Smt. Pushpa Sharma and Smt. Rama Ray as teachers in that school. Their respective appointment orders dated 26.8.1977, Annexure I(1), 7.12.1976, Annexure P9, 24.8.1977, Annexure P10 and 15.2.1976, Annexure I(2) were issued by the Senior Personnel Officer, WCL, Kotma Colliery. Smt. Sarifunisha left her services in the year 1996 while Smt. Pushpa Sharma and Smt. Rama Ray were not only regularized/confirmed but also promoted as Upper Division Teachers in that school vide order dated 31.6.1994, Annexure P17.
(iii) The Sub-Area Manager, WCL, in his letter dated 6.3.1978, Annexure P2, informed the District Education Officer that the Junior High School of ACC at Kotma Colliery was taken over by the WCL administration in 1973 after nationalization of coal mines and asked him to change the name of that school as Junior High School, Kotma Colliery, for administrative reasons.
(iv) In the year 1979 the management of WCL decided to run the school through a society consisting mainly of its officers so that the management had full administrative and financial control over the school. The society was registered in the name of “Western Coalfields Limited Education Society”.
(v) The fact that the management of WCL had administrative and financial control over the school also becomes apparent from the bare perusal of the constitution of society, Annexure P5. According to Clause (iii)(C) of the constitution, the maximum number of the members of society could be 11 and under Clause (D) its managing committee consisted of Sub-Area Manager, Colliery, as ex-officio Patron-in-Chief; Manager, Colliery as Chairman; Senior Personnel Officer, Colliery as ex-officio Secretary; and Treasurer nominated by the Patron-in-Chief. Its remaining members were District Education Officer, Principal of the School, two members of workers’ representatives nominated by Patron-in-Chief, two members nominated by the committee amongst guardians of the students and only one member as teachers’ representative. The managing committee was, thus, manned essentially by the officers of the management of WCL. Under Clause 9 the Principal of the School could prepare a budget only with the consultation of the Chairman who was none other than the Manager of the Colliery. Likewise, under Clause 13(D) even the governing body of the society was headed by the General Manager, Colliery, as ex-officio Patron-in- Chief; head of the Area Personnel Department as ex-officio Chairman and Personnel Officer, Colliery, as Vice Chairman. Clause 21 of the constitution also provided that the governing body and managing committee will approach the management of WCL for expenses to be required for running the school after passing of the budget by the General Body. Thus, it is as clear as daylight that the management of WCL had complete financial and administrative control over the school and it was being run from the expenses provided by the management of WCL.
(vi) The Sub-Area Manager, WCL, issued an “office order” dated 20.3.1982, Annexure J4, wherein he ordered that with effect from 1.4.1982 departments of common services of Kotma, including Junior High School, Kotma Colliery, shall be under the administrative control of the officers named therein. Likewise, the “office note” dated 9.2.1983, Annexure P23 (W. P. No. 1692/1996), prepared by the Sub-Area Manager, WCL, also reveals about the decision taken by the management of WCL to develop the backyard of school as a play ground. These documents apparently go to show that even after the formation of society to run the school, it was actually under complete administrative control of the management of WCL. (vii) During this period, WCL was re-designated as SECL and the Western Coalfields Limited Education Society was continued initially in the name of Shiksha Samiti, Kotma Colliery, and thereafter as South Eastern Coalfields Limited Education Society. This was done essentially due to change in the management from WCL to SECL.
(viii) But for three petitioners namely, Smt. Sarifunisha, Smt. Pushpa Sharma and Smt. Rama Ray, the remaining petitioners were appointed as teachers in the school by the Western Coalfields Limited Education Society and after the re-designation of WCL as SECL by the re-designated South Eastern Coalfields Limited Education Society.
(ix) Memo dated 22.4.1987, Annexure K(1), written by the Senior Personnel Manager, SECL, addressed to the Principal of School is regarding release of the pay bill of teachers for the month of March 1987 by the management. Letter dated 28.4.1993, Annexure P3 (W. P. No. 1692/1996), addressed both by the Secretary of society and Sub-Area Manager of SECL to the Deputy Director (Education) Shahdol wherein it is stated that the school is being 100% financed by the management of SECL and, therefore, it be recognized perpetually. Note sheet dated 8.3.1996, Annexure P2 (W. P. No. 1692/1996), prepared in the office of Personnel Manager (Administration), SECL, which is regarding sanction of the budget of school, states that no fee is charged from the students of the school. Annexure P7 is a certificate dated 14.8.1996 issued by the Personnel Manager, SECL, certifying that provident fund of petitioner Smt. Pushpa Sharma was deducted from her salary for the months from March 1978 up to March 1979. All these documents clearly reveal that the management of SECL had complete administrative and financial control over the school of petitioners.
16. The facts on record show in clear terms that the school was established from before the nationalization of coal mine for the children of workmen, staff and officers at coal mine. After nationalization, the school was managed by the WCL and after the re-designation of WCL as SECL, the school was managed by the SECL. The societies of WCL and SECL were controlled by the management and were manned by their officers. The management of WCL/SECL have been taking active interest in all the administrative, financial and sports activities of the school. Despite the change in the management from WCL to SECL, the teachers (petitioners) in the school were not changed. The school has been running continuously since last many decades. It cannot be disputed that running of a school whether directly or through a society by the coal company is an incidental activity of coal mine industry because it is a welfare activity for the benefit of the employees of the coal mine and relieves them of the strain which they would normally suffer in taking their children to remote places and results in improving the quality of their work. In the fact situation of the case at hand, I am of the view that the school has become a part of the management of SECL and the society is merely a veil between the management of SECL and the petitioners. I accordingly hold that the petitioners are the employees of SECL.
17. Shri P. S. Nair, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, brought to my notice two subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court, viz. Employers in relation to the Management of Reserve Bank of India v. Workmen and State Bank of India and Ors. v. State Bank of India Canteen Employees’ Union (Bengal Circle) and Ors. air 2000 SC 1518 in which the case of Parimal Chandra Raha and Ors. (Supra) has been considered. I have perused both these decisions and I do not find anywhere that the legal propositions laid by Hon’ble Sawant,J. in the case of Parimal Chandra Raha have either been modified or overruled. The learned senior counsel produced another unreported judgment dated 27.7.2001 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 431/1998 (SECL v. Kuleshwar Prasad and Anr.) wherein the finding given by the learned single Judge that SECL was the employer of teachers, was set aside. It is to be noted that the said finding was set aside mainly on the ground that SECL was not a party before the learned single Judge and it did not get an opportunity to present its case. Moreover, the dispute in the LPA was in respect of teachers of another school and it is not clear under what circumstances that school was established.
18. The objection that the school is not a “fixed asset” within section 2(h)(xii) of the Act and, therefore, did not vest in the Central Government and thereafter in the Government companies, is also without any substance. The school building and its accessories were held by the ACC, the owner of the mine, not for converting them into cash but for running the school for the welfare of the workmen and employees which is an incidental activity of the business of coal mine. As held in Union of India and Ors. (Supra) on which Shri N. S. Kale relied “`Fixed assets’ in general comprise those assets which are held for the purpose of conducting a business, in contradistinction to those assets which the proprietor holds for the purpose of converting into cash, and they include real estate, building, machinery, etc.” school clearly falls within this meaning of fixed assets. Moreover, it is a fact as held above that the school was taken over by the WCL/SECL.
19. As regards the second question whether the petitioners are entitled for the same higher salary which is being paid to other teachers of the school on the principle of equal pay for equal work, it is not clear as to under what circumstances other teachers, with whom parity is sought, were appointed. Moreover, all those teachers but for Smt. L. D. Rawalkar have admittedly retired from service. Smt. L. D. Rawalkar will also be retiring in the month of December 2007. Thus, even if there was any discrimination the same has virtually come to an end. Further, it is clearly mentioned in the appointment orders of petitioners that their appointment in the school is on Madhya Pradesh State Government Pay Scale plus Dearness Allowance as admissible from time to time by the State Government. The condition of that pay scale was willingly accepted by the petitioners. I, therefore, do not find any good reason to direct for the payment of higher salary to petitioners on the principle of equal pay for equal work.
20. As a result of the above discussion, Writ Petition No. 1692/1996 is allowed and the SECL (respondents) is directed to pay the arrears of salary due to the petitioners from September 2003 with 6% interest from the date of this order till payment. The SECL is also directed to continue to pay the petitioners their salary till they remain in service. The SECL will also pay the costs of this petition to the petitioners which I assess Rs. 5000/-. Miscellaneous Petition No. 2432/1989 and Writ Petition No. 1074/2003, which deal with the question of regularization and equal pay for equal work, are dismissed. The relief of regularization having already been granted, the petitions to that extent have become infructuous and the relief for equal pay for equal work has been rejected on merits. There shall be no order as to costs on these petitions.