Judgment A.I.S. Cheema, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of parties. 2. The petitioner Dattatraya Laxman Rakh (hereinafter referred to as the "employee") has filed this Writ Petition claiming that he was in employment with the respondent No. 2 Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, Aurangabad Divisional Board, Aurangabad (hereinafter referred to as the "Board") and has retired, but his pensionery benefits have not been released. 3. It is the case of the employee that:- (a) He was appointed on 15.11.1984 in the post of Peon and continued in service till 1.2.1988 when his services were orally terminated by the Board. He approached the Deputy Commissioner of Labour at Aurangabad and the dispute was referred to Labour Court by the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 14.2.1989. The employee and the Board went before the Labour Court at Aurangabad in Reference (I.D.A.) No. 26/1989. An award was passed in favour of the employee, directing that he should be reinstated by the Board in service with continuity and back wages. (b) The Board filed Writ Petition No.2560/1993 against the award, which was finally decided by this Court on 5.3.2012 and the Rule issued earlier came to be discharged, in favour of the employee. (c) This Court confirmed the order passed by the Labour Court. The employee rendered service of about 24 years in the office of the Board and now he has retired on 31.5.2012. In April 2012, the employee requested the Board to forward his pension papers. However, the Board did not take necessary steps. Thus, the employee has prayed that his pension papers should be forwarded by the Board to the competent authority and he should be given all benefits to which other permanent employees are entitled. 4. Respondent No.2, the Board has resisted the claim of the employee, claiming that all the facts as stated in the petition were already before this Court in Writ Petition No.2560/1993, which has been finally decided. In the Writ Petition, it was argued that there was no ground of regularisation of services of the employee and this Court observed that the issue was not before the Court. The employee has already retired and he was informed that he was not entitle to benefits of permanency as his services were continued on the basis of order of this Court for 20 years. The employee has already retired and he was informed that he was not entitle to benefits of permanency as his services were continued on the basis of order of this Court for 20 years. The Board has prayed that the petition be rejected. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for both the sides putting up their respective cases on above lines. We have gone through the record. 6. Record shows that the employee moved the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Aurangabad and a reference under Sections 10 and 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (I.D. Act for short) was referred to the Labour Court for decision. In the Labour Court, the employee claimed that he had been appointed by the Board w.e.f. 15.11.1984 in Class IV service as a Peon and worked on daily wages continuously. After completing three years, he claimed privileges of permanent employee, but was terminated w.e.f. 1.2.1988 without assigning any reason or following any procedure. The Board appointed fresh candidates for getting the same work done. He was not given any notice or notice pay or retrenchment compensation as per Section 25-F of the I.D. Act. Before the Labour Court, the Board claimed that, it was not an industry, and the services of the employee had been taken purely on temporary basis. The Labour Court, after recording the evidence, recorded finding that the Board was indeed an industry. It also found that the Board had employed fresh candidates for doing the work which was being taken from the employee and there was breach of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act. The Labour Court recorded that, termination of the employee was illegal and the employee was entitled to be reinstated in service. It also found that the employee was entitled for continuity of service and back wages. Consequently, the Board was directed to reinstate the employee in service with continuity and back wages. 7. Perusal of record of Writ Petition No.2560/1993, which was filed by the Board in this Court shows that, it was not disputed that the Board had engaged the employee. It was claimed that the employee was engaged on purely temporary basis as daily rated worker as and when required and after 15.11.1984 he was engaged as a casual labour. The services of the respondent (employee) were terminated w.e.f. 1.2.1988 as his services were no longer required. 8. It was claimed that the employee was engaged on purely temporary basis as daily rated worker as and when required and after 15.11.1984 he was engaged as a casual labour. The services of the respondent (employee) were terminated w.e.f. 1.2.1988 as his services were no longer required. 8. Various contentions were raised in the Writ Petition, but the Board itself mentioned in the Writ Petition that it had not been able to lead necessary evidence "because of some unavoidable circumstances". 9. It has been now claimed by the Board that, in spite of the earlier Writ Petition, the employee was not entitled to retiral benefits as although there were directions to reinstate the employee, he was not given benefits of permanency. We do not find substance in this defence of the Board. Admittedly, the employee had been engaged during the period 15.11.1984 to 1.2.1988, where-after the dispute started. While the employee claimed to have been continuously engaged during this period, the Board resisted, but admittedly did not bring on record the necessary evidence, and the Labour Court directed reinstatement with back wages. Record of the Writ Petition No.2560/1993 shows that although this Court initially had granted stay to the judgment of the Labour Court when the writ petition was admitted, but subsequently the stay came to be vacated and the Board was required to implement the award. The employee was required to file Contempt Petition No.263/1995, in which orders were passed on 11.12.1995. Later, another Contempt Petition No.101/1996 was required to be filed by the employee, in which following order came to be passed on 25.7.1996 :- "This is a second contempt petition, whereby the petitioner is forced to approach this Court on failure of the respondent No.1 to comply with the order passed by the Labour Court. The petitioner was employed as daily rated employee with the respondent No.1 but his services were terminated for which, the petitioner has filed complaint before the Commissioner of Labour, Aurangabad on 23.1.1989, wherein he has claimed benefits of a permanent employee. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, therefore, made a reference I.D.A. No.26/1989 before the Labour Court, Aurangabad. By an award dated 17.7.1993, the Labour Court allowed the reference and directed the respondent No.1 to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity and back wages. Non compliance of the said award gave rise to the filing of Contempt Petition No.263/1995. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, therefore, made a reference I.D.A. No.26/1989 before the Labour Court, Aurangabad. By an award dated 17.7.1993, the Labour Court allowed the reference and directed the respondent No.1 to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity and back wages. Non compliance of the said award gave rise to the filing of Contempt Petition No.263/1995. That contempt petition came to be disposed on 11.12.1995 by the following order:- "The respondent No.1, who is Divisional Secretary is present personally in Court. This petition is filed by the original respondent in W.P.2560/93 for taking action against respondent No.1 for contempt of Court for not implementing the award passed by the Labour Court on 17.7.1993. Shri Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, under instructions, makes the statement at the Bar that respondent No.1 will implement the Award of Labour Court within six weeks from today but the reinstatement of the original respondent in the writ petition will be subject of the result in the writ petition. Shri Dhongade, counsel for the petitioner accepts this statement. In the circumstances, without going into any details of the allegations made by the petitioner, I find that the statement made by Shri Joshi, counsel for the respondent is reasonable to be acted upon and accordingly, it is directed that respondent No.1 shall implement the award of the Labour Court, which is impugned in the writ petition within six weeks from today. However, that will be subject to the result in writ petition. Contempt Petition, therefore, stands disposed of accordingly." It may be stated that the respondent No.1 has filed the Writ Petition No.2560/1993 challenging the award but this Court declined to stay the award for the reasons recorded in the order dated 11.12.95. The non compliance of the order passed in Contempt Petition No.263 of 1995 again gave rise to the filing of the Contempt Petition No.101/1996. In reply, the respondent No.1 wants to resist the contempt petition on twofold grounds, firstly, that the respondent No.1 complied with the order of the Labour Court as well as this Court by making deposit of back wages on the last pay drawn by the petitioner as daily wages and secondly, that the petitioner was intimated in writing to resume his duties as a daily rated employee by letter dated 25.1.96. It is thus clear that the respondent No.1 while treating the petitioner as daily rated employee read the order of the Labour Court as well as this Court so as to reinstate him as a daily rated employee. The respondent No.1, however, seems to have overlooked the main claim made before the Dy. Commissioner of Labour, wherein he has claimed permanency making grievance about non payment of regular salary as a Peon in the office of the respondent No.1. The Labour Court indeed granted the reference and therefore the award must be read in its true sense and spirit that the petitioner was directed to be reinstated as a Peon in the pay scale as applicable to the Class IV employee and not as a daily rated employee. Indeed, the petitioner points out several circumstances to show how the respondent No.1 intentionally avoided to obey the orders passed by the Courts previously. It is however, not necessary to go into the question about disobedience of the order of this Court or the Labour Court since Shri Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, under instructions, made a statement on the earlier day that the petitioner will be reinstated in the letter and spirit of the award. Accordingly, Shri Joshi produces the order made today under the signature of the Divisional Secretary, reinstating the petitioner in the form of appointment letter, on the post of Peon subject to the decision in the Writ Petition No. 2560/1993 in the grade of Rs.750-12-870-EB-14-940 as applicable to Class IV employees. The letter however, embodies three more conditions at Sr.Nos.4, 5 and 6. I do not think that these conditions are necessary when the order of reinstatement is to be implemented. These conditions are therefore, not to be enforced against the petitioner for the present. Shri Phatak, learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, accepts the appointment subject to his contention that the respondent No.1 will have to pay the difference in wages or salary, as the case may be till the petitioner resumes his duty in the appropriate proceeding. The respondent No.1 stated that the back wages were deposited on the basis that the petitioner was a daily rated employee. This position having not been disputed by the petitioner, the question of back wages on basis of regular employment as a Peon will have to be dealt with independently in the writ petition. The respondent No.1 stated that the back wages were deposited on the basis that the petitioner was a daily rated employee. This position having not been disputed by the petitioner, the question of back wages on basis of regular employment as a Peon will have to be dealt with independently in the writ petition. Since I find that there is now compliance of the order of reinstatement in its proper sence, I do not think that any further action is needed to be taken in the contempt petition. The letter produced by Shri Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 is taken on record by making it clear that conditions 4, 5 and 6 stand deleted from the letter. The contempt petition thus stands disposed of with no order as to costs." (Emphasis supplied) 10. Thus, it is clear that, during the pendency of the earlier writ petition, this Court referred to the true sense and spirit of the award, & the Board was required to reinstate the employee in letter and spirit of the award, in the form of appointment letter on the post of Peon in the grade of Rs. 750-12-870-EB-14-940 as applicable to Class IV employees at that time. Of course, the Board took the steps claiming that it was subject to the decision of the Writ Petition. 11. After developments as above, on 25.7.1996, the earlier Writ Petition had come up for final hearing before the learned Single Judge of this Court on 5.3.2012. The learned Single Judge referred to the dispute and earlier order dated 11.12.1995 in the matter and made following observations in paragraph Nos.6 to 8 of the order :- "6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respective parties that pursuant to the said statement the present respondent has been reinstated in service and is due to retire on 31.5.2012. In view of that, I do not feel it appropriate to unsettle the said position which is in force for more than 16 years, as the employee is likely to retire and the order impugned is already implemented by reinstating the respondent. 7. Shri Soman, the learned counsel tried to submit that the respondent cannot claim regularization pursuant to the orders passed by the Labour Court, as he is not appointed by following due procedure of law. 7. Shri Soman, the learned counsel tried to submit that the respondent cannot claim regularization pursuant to the orders passed by the Labour Court, as he is not appointed by following due procedure of law. The same is not an issue in the present matter and as such the said argument is not considered. 8. The writ petition is disposed of. Rule discharged." 12. Looking to the facts as discussed above and the developments in earlier writ petition, the defence taken by the Board that there was no permanency, needs to be rejected. Keeping in view true sense of spirit of orders of the Labour Court read with the order dated 25.7.1996 in Contempt Petition No.101/1996, as reproduced above, it would be trite to say that the employee who has worked for so many years is not liable to be treated as permanent and not entitle to retiral benefits. The existence of the Board is on the basis of the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Boards Act, 1965. Keeping in view the provisions of the Act, the Board cannot avoid its responsibility. 13. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. For reasons discussed, the respondents are directed to release terminal benefits of the petitioner - employee as per entitlement within a period of three months. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs.