R. R. TRIPATHI, J. ( 1 ) : the present petition is filed by the petitioner corporation challenging the judgement and award dated 7. 3. 1998, passed by the Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Rajkot in Reference (ITR) No. 166 of 1992. The Industrial Tribunal was considering the demand,"whether Shri Devubhai Jorubha Jadeja should be taken on time scale from the date he had completed 180 days in service and whether he should be given pay, dearness allowance, increments, SL uniforms with arrears?"in this matter this Court has already issued rule on 21. 9. 1999 and notice as to interim relief is made returnable on 12. 10. 1999. Mr. G. K. Rathod, learned advocate for respondent no. 1 submitted that the workman concerned has already expired on 29. 9. 1997 and therefore it will be in the interest of justice if the petition is taken up for final disposal. ( 2 ) WITH the consent of the parties the matter is taken up for final disposal. On behalf of Messrs Thakkar Associates it is submitted that the case of the petitioner corporation is incorporated in para 3 of the award of the Industrial Tribunal, which reads as under :". . . . . . IT is submitted that said workman was employed as reliever watchman only when the regular watchman proceeds on leave and his appointment was terminable without any notice; that his such appointment was made by an office order dt. 27. 12. 74 and as per the terms of his appointment, his services were terminated; that thereafter he was again employed as daily rated watchman by an order dt. 7. 9. 78 for a period from 1. 9. 78 to 30. 9. 78; that thus he was given appointment only for 30 days and thereafter by giving one days break, he was given appointment of thirty days each month and as such the workman is continued in service from September 1978 on temporary basis; that the said workman was not selected by the selection committee and hence he is not entitled to the benefits claimed by him. "as against that, Mr. G. K. Rathod for the respondent has pointed out that it is the case of the workman, who was examined at exh. 8 on oath that he was working in the Corporation for the last 25 to 27 years. It is also pointed out by Mr. "as against that, Mr. G. K. Rathod for the respondent has pointed out that it is the case of the workman, who was examined at exh. 8 on oath that he was working in the Corporation for the last 25 to 27 years. It is also pointed out by Mr. Rathod that the workman was discharged only once he entered the service of the corporation, which was prior to 20 years. Thereafter, he was never discharged. It is pointed out on on behalf of Messrs Thakkar Associates that the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Piara Singh and ohers, (1992) 4 SCC 118 , is overruled in a subsequent decision in the case of Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur and another v. Veer Singh Rajput and others, 1997 (2) LLJ 627. In that case a petition was filed by regularisation of daily rated must roll casual labourers employed by the Municipal Corporation. The High Court was pleased to quash the order of discharge and directed regularisation of services of casual labouers. The Honourable Supreme Court, in appeal, set aside the order of the High Court as initial appointment was irregular and regularisation was contrary to the administrative instructions. In the facts of the present case the said judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court will not have application as the facts of the present case are different. It is submitted on behalf of Messrs Thakkar Associates that in that view of the mater, the judgement and award is required to be quashed and set aside. ( 3 ) LOOKING to the facts and circumstances of the case, and taking a sympathetic view of the matter as the workman has died during pendency of the reference on 20. 9. 1997, the benefits which are granted to the respondent workman putting him in the time scale from 1. 3. 1979 is not required to be interfered with. Mr. Rathod for the respondents has submitted that if the respondent workman is put in the time scale with effect from 1. 3. 1979, till the date the respondent workman has expired 1997, it will be about 18 years for which he will be getting benefits. Mr. 3. 1979 is not required to be interfered with. Mr. Rathod for the respondents has submitted that if the respondent workman is put in the time scale with effect from 1. 3. 1979, till the date the respondent workman has expired 1997, it will be about 18 years for which he will be getting benefits. Mr. Rathod submitted that as the petitioner corporation is not in a position to show anything against the respondent workman and that he has been working continuously for the last so many years. However, in the alternative he submitted that it will be in the interest of justice if instead of allowing him 100% consequential benefits, the same are reduced appropriately so as to take care of the contention of the petitioner corporation. Taking into consideration this alternative submission of Mr. Rathod, it is deemed fit that if instead of 100% consequential benefits, the same are restricted to 75%, it will take care of the situation. The justification for this reduction can be had from the fact that if not from 1979, at least from a latter date the respondent workman must have entitled himself to get the benefits which are sought to be awarded by the impugned award of the Industrial Tribunal from 1979. ( 4 ) IN the result the award of the Industrial Tribunal in Reference (ITR) No. 166 of 1992 is modified to the extent that the consequential benefits, such as, difference of pay and allowances, bonus, encashment of EL, which might have been credited to the deceased workman on placing him on the time scale, increments, shall be paid to the respondent to the extent of 75% instead of 100%. The award of the Industrial Tribunal stands modified to the aforesaid extent. The petition is allowed only to the aforesaid extent. rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. .