JUDGMENT : K.M.Thaker, J. Heard Mr. Gaurang H.Bhatt learned advocate for petitioner and Mr. Tushar Sheth, learned advocate for respondent No.1 in SCA No.336/09 and Mr.R.D.Raval, learned advocate for respondent No.1 in SCA No.13859/08 and SCA No. 13861/08. Rule. At the request and with the consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, the petitions are taken up for final hearing and disposed off today. Mr. Sheth, learned advocate wavies service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No.1 in SCA No.336/09 and Mr. R.D. Raval, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No.1 in SCA No.13859/08 and SCA No.13861/08. In these petitions the petitioner has brought under challenge identical, however separate orders being order dated 21.11.2008 (in SCA No.336/09), order dated 31.1.2008 (in SCA No.13859/08) and order dated 31.1.2008 (in SCA No.13861/08) passed by Labour Court Rajkot in Reference (IT) No. 52 of 1991 (in SCA No.336/09), Reference (IT) No. 211 of 1990 (in SCA No.13859/08) and Reference (IT) No. 168 of 1990 (in SCA No.13861/08) whereby the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot has issued certain directions to the petitioner, while partly allowing the reference. 2. Mr. Bhatt, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that all the three awards are identical and verbatim the same. He also submitted that the dispute before the Tribunal was also identical in all the three reference proceedings. Mr. Sheth, learned advocate and Mr. Raval, learned advocate for the respondent in the respective petitions, confirmed the said submissions of Mr. Bhatt, learned advocate for the petitioner. Hence, considering the fact that the awards impugned in these three petitions are identical and the issues involved in three reference proceedings are also same, the three petitions are being disposed off by this common order. 3. Certain employees of petitioner municipality raised an industrial dispute demanding diverse benefits. The claimants have been working with the petitioner municipality on daily wage basis as cleaners/sweepers including street cleaning work etc. After hearing the parties the said reference cases came to be partly allowed by the awards impugned in the captioned petitions. 4. 3. Certain employees of petitioner municipality raised an industrial dispute demanding diverse benefits. The claimants have been working with the petitioner municipality on daily wage basis as cleaners/sweepers including street cleaning work etc. After hearing the parties the said reference cases came to be partly allowed by the awards impugned in the captioned petitions. 4. By the impugned awards, the learned Tribunal has directed the petitioner-municipality to fill up the vacant posts within six months and the Tribunal further directed the petitioner municipality that as and when municipality effects the recruitment, the workmen concerned in the reference cases should be permitted to compete with other participants, however, certain relaxation in eligibility criteria should be granted in favour of the respondents. 5. Upon aggrieved by the said two directions, the petitioner municipality is before this Court. 6. So far as the direction for completing the process of filling up posts within six months is concerned, this Court is of the view that the said direction cannot be sustained. The procedure of filling up vacancies in municipality has to undergo various stages and sanctions or approvals from different departments and authorities have to be obtained. Obviously, such process takes considerable time. Under the circumstances, the said direction cannot be sustained. Hence the said direction is set aside, however, with a specific clarification that the petitioner Nagarpalika should not consume unnecessary and unreasonably long time in this process and must strive to complete such process of filling up sanctioned posts (which are vacant) as quickly as possible. 7. The petitioner municipality, thus, shall make attempt to fill-up the clear and sanctioned vacancies as early as possible and take all necessary steps, as may be required, to fill-up the vacant sanctioned post in reasonable time. 8. While effecting the recruitment, the municipality shall keep in focus the direction given by this Court in the judgment by the Full Bench in the case of Amreli Municipality v. Gujarat Pradesh Municipal Employees Union reported in 2004(103) FLR 239 (Guj.-F.B.). 9. As and when the process of selection and recruitment on sanctioned post is commenced, after requisite approval and sanction and after completion of all formalities, the concerned respondents herein shall be permitted to compete and their candidature will also be taken into consideration. 10. 9. As and when the process of selection and recruitment on sanctioned post is commenced, after requisite approval and sanction and after completion of all formalities, the concerned respondents herein shall be permitted to compete and their candidature will also be taken into consideration. 10. Obviously, there cannot be any relaxation so far as the eligibility criteria prescribed by law is concerned and that therefore the direction by the trial Court to grant relaxation in eligibility criteria cannot be maintained in totality. The said direction should not be construed to mean that all eligibility criteria e.g. education, specific experience, other requisite and job specific qualifications etc., should be relaxed qua the concerned persons. However, the petitioner municipality shall, in case of the concerned respondents/workers, take into account their age as on the date of their first/initial entry in the employment with the petitioner and not their present age or the age at the time of proposed recruitment, so that the concerned persons may not be ousted at threshold on ground of age limit. In other words the case of the concerned respondents shall not be rejected on the ground of bar of age limit as on the date of recruitment, provided on the date of their initial and continuing entry in the municipality they were not age barred. The aforesaid clarification and direction is made considering the fact that the concerned 7 respondents (whose names are mentioned in the cause title) have been in employment of the petition since long time and they had been continued until now. It may be that after serving the petitioner for last number of years they might have crossed the age bar, but looking to their past service with the petitioner, it would not be unjust or arbitrary or even discriminatory to ask the petitioner to not to consider their present age but to consider their age as at the time of their initial and continuing entry. Except the aforesaid relaxation, no other relaxation can be granted. The order which is beyond aforesaid position, cannot be sustained. 11. Mr. Raval, learned advocate and Mr. Sheth, learned advocate for the respective respondents submitted that many of the concerned workmen have been working with the municipality since more than 10 years and some of them are even on the verge of superannuation inasmuch as they have reached age beyond 50 years. Mr. 11. Mr. Raval, learned advocate and Mr. Sheth, learned advocate for the respective respondents submitted that many of the concerned workmen have been working with the municipality since more than 10 years and some of them are even on the verge of superannuation inasmuch as they have reached age beyond 50 years. Mr. Raval, learned advocate submitted that the concerned workmen have come to know that the municipality has now framed regulations for purpose of selection and recruitment to various posts including the post of sweepers and cleaners. He further submitted that the concerned workmen apprehends that the petitioner municipality will apply those regulations while effecting recruitment pursuant to and in compliance of the award impugned in present petitions then in such eventuality the concerned workmen would be deprived of the opportunity of competing with other participants in view of the prescription regarding education qualifications. Mr. Raval, learned advocate submitted that this Court has clarified the situation regarding maximum age limit and similarly the situation regarding education qualifications may also be clarified. 12. The said submission by Mr. Raval, learned advocate is beyond the scope of present petitions inasmuch as present petitions have been filed by the municipality against the award, and more particularly against the two directions given by the learned Tribunal. If the declaration of the municipality prescribes certain education qualifications then it would not be within the jurisdiction of the Court to relax such qualification and more particularly in present case, it would be beyond scope of the petitions. In view of the said position, Mr. Raval, learned advocate for the respondent workmen in SCA No.13861/08 and SCA No.13859/08 and Mr. Sheth, learned advocate for the respondent workmen in SCA No.336/09 submitted, relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter between Gujarat Agricultural University v. Rathod Labhu Bechar and others reported in 2001(89)FLR 18 (SC) that the regulations which are sought to be brought into effect after the entry of the concerned workman in the municipality should not be applied qua them and that their cases should be considered as per the rules prevailing at the time when they were engaged. The learned advocate for the respondent workman submitted that in view of the technical hurdle in the way of the concerned respondents viz., that they cannot make any objection or contention beyond the scope of petition and that too in the petition filed by Municipality, the respondent workmen will make appropriate representation to the municipality so as to not to apply the regulations to the persons who are already in employment and who are permitted to compete with other participants by virtue of the awards impugned in the present petitions. 13. Mr. Bhatt, learned advocate for the petitioner, submitted that, if and when such representation is made, the petitioner municipality will consider the same sympathetically and take appropriate decision in that regard. Mr. Raval, learned advocate for the concerned respondents will make appropriate representation within three weeks. Mr. Bhatt, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that, before finalising the selection and recruitment the petitioner municipality will take into account the representation of the respondent workmen and take appropriate decision thereon and their applications will not be rejected before deciding their representations. 14. In view of the said statement and assurance given by Mr. Bhatt, learned advocate for the petitioner, any further direction with regard to the grievance made by the respondent workmen are not required. It will be outside the scope of present petitions and also not proper and permissible for the Court to direct the petitioner municipality to relax education qualifications, however the representation and request of the respondent workmen that the new regulations, if brought in operation, may not be applied to the persons who were working with the municipality since so many years may be appropriately decided by the petitioner municipality in accordance with law. 15. Mr. Raval, learned advocate submitted that if the representation is not accepted by the petitioner municipality, the concerned workmen will take out appropriate proceedings. It is, however, clarified that the respondent workmen will not stall the recruitment process which may be initiated by the petitioner municipality. 16. With the aforesaid clarifications and directions the petitions are partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.