JUDGMENT : PARESH UPADHYAY, J. 1. Heard Mr. Vishal Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the petitioner-State Authorities and Mr. A.K. Clerk, learned advocate for the concerned workmen, through respondent Union. 2. Challenge in this petition is made to the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot, dated 30.06.2012 in Reference (IT) No. 127 of 2008, whereby 23 workmen, named in the operative part of the award, are directed to be paid wages of the post of Clerk, from the date they were so appointed by the Government, as per the policy of the Government. 2.1 The relevant facts, as emerging from record are as under. 2.2 One earlier round of litigation, which has attained finality right upto Honourable the Supreme Court of India and which is not the subject matter of this petition, has some bearing on the present petition and therefore, facts in that regard are also recorded. 2.3 The 23 workmen in whose favour the present impugned award is passed by the Tribunal, were initially engaged as labourers/Mazdoors on daily wage basis by the petitioner authorities. Their date of appointment as such, was between the year 1979 and 1983. These 23 persons were few of hundreds of other similarly situated labourers. As per the policy of the Government, more particularly, as contained in Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, on completion of five years of service, a daily wager Mazdoor was supposed to be taken on the minimum of the pay scale of class IV employee. The said policy stipulates further benefits on completion of seven years, ten years, fifteen years of service etc. 2.4 A group of about 385 daily rated Labourers/Mazdoors demanded their regularisation of service on the post, on which they were working, as per the policy of the Government, more particularly, in the light of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. The said cause was taken up by one Saurashtra Majoor Mahajan Singh and the Reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot being Reference (ITR) No. 374 of 1992 and 91 of 1995. 2.5 The said Reference came to be allowed by the Tribunal, vide its award dated 04.07.1997, with the direction to the State authorities to treat said workmen to be on regular establishment, as regular employees, on the post on which they were working. The said direction was on the basis of the policy decision of the Government in that regard which was on record. The said direction was on the basis of the policy decision of the Government in that regard which was on record. 2.6 The said award of the Industrial Tribunal dated 04.07.1997 was challenged by the State authorities before this Court, by way of a petition being Special Civil Application No. 9791 of 1998, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 30.11.1998, inter-alia, observing therein that, the petitioner State authorities were only directed to act in accordance with the Government circular. 2.7 Thus, Industrial Tribunal as well as this Court, both had directed the authorities of the Government to act in consonance with their own policy. Even with that, the State authorities were aggrieved and therefore even the said order was challenged before the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 605 of 1999. The Division Bench of this Court, after referring to various decisions and particularly the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, came to the conclusion that there was no error, either in the award of the Industrial Tribunal or the order of learned Single Judge. The appeal was dismissed vide order dated 28.12.2001. 2.8 The State authorities had moved Honourable the Supreme Court of India in this regard, but the said appeal was not entertained on the ground of delay and came to be dismissed vide order dated 12.07.2004. SLP (Civil) CC No. 5058/2004, Converted in SLP (Civil) 13685/2004. Even then, the authorities did not do anything to comply with the award. 2.9 In the meantime, the Union had moved this Court by way of a petition being Special Civil Application No. 5360 of 1999, for implementation of the said award which remained pending for years. This was treated to be a good ground by the State authorities not to comply with the award in question though they had lost right upto the Apex Court. However, when the said petition was listed for hearing before this Court on 25.06.2007, the State authorities did not have any answer whatsoever and straightway it was conceded that necessary orders regarding appointment on permanent basis would be issued in favour of each of the petitioners within a period of four weeks. The petition was disposed off by giving directions, accordingly. The said statement on behalf of the State, was also not for compliance but for defiance, since it was not honoured. The petition was disposed off by giving directions, accordingly. The said statement on behalf of the State, was also not for compliance but for defiance, since it was not honoured. 2.10 The employees were again constrained to move this Court by filing a contempt application being Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 2139 of 2007. Only then, the State authorities issued an Office Order on 28.03.2008, mischievously pretending it to be in compliance of the above stated litigation, as elaborated hereafter. It is also recorded that, the said Office Order dated 28.03.2008 was less for compliance of the award of the Tribunal, and more was an attempt to come out of the contempt proceedings, which is recorded hereinafter in paras 3.11 and 3.12. The said contempt proceedings came to be disposed off by this Court on 28.03.2008, inter-alia observing, in the following terms: “.....In so far as the grievance raised on behalf of the 26 of the petitioners regarding the designation and other related issues, it is not possible to undertake the said exercise in the present proceedings. It will be open to the aggrieved persons to raise the said grievance in accordance with law before appropriate authority.” 2.11 As noted above, the dispute of the above referred litigation pertained to 385 Mazdoors, who were in the employment since the year 1979, 1981, 1983 etc. Out of these Mazdoors, few were having educational qualification of Matriculation or more. Considering the increased clerical work, a policy was framed by the Government, reference to which can be made to the Government Resolution dated 01.05.1991, that those Mazdoors, who have put in not less than seven years of service, and who are having the educational qualification of not less than Matriculation or equivalent, shall be given the work of a Clerk. Of the total 385 above stated Mazdoors, there were about 34 such Mazdoors who were having educational qualification of Matriculation or more. Thus, as per the policy of the Government, they were given work of a Clerk since 01.05.1991. There is no dispute on the point that this group of 34 employees were treated to be Clerk by the State authorities themselves, since 01.05.1991, as per the policy of the Government dated 01.05.1991 and were paid accordingly. This happened even prior to the earlier round of litigation, which is referred to in detail hereinabove. There is no dispute on the point that this group of 34 employees were treated to be Clerk by the State authorities themselves, since 01.05.1991, as per the policy of the Government dated 01.05.1991 and were paid accordingly. This happened even prior to the earlier round of litigation, which is referred to in detail hereinabove. 2.12 Since the year 1991, this group of 34 employees were treated and paid as Clerk, as per the policy of the Government itself and this continued till the year 2008, when the compliance of the earlier round of litigation was reported by the State authorities to the Division Bench of this Court in contempt proceedings. Here a mischief was played by the petitioner State authorities. While complying with the award of the Industrial Tribunal dated 04.07.1997, that too after eleven years, all 385 persons were treated to be permanent Mazdoors, on completion of their five years of service from the initial date of appointment as Mazdoor, which in any case was prior to year 1983 and thus the completion of five years service as Mazdoor was in any case prior to year 1988. While doing so, even those Mazdoors, who were having educational qualification of Matriculation or above, and who, on completion of their seven years of service were treated to be Clerk by the authorities, as per the policy of the Government dated 01.05.1991 since 01.05.1991 and who were continued as such for about seventeen years, were also treated as Mazdoors from the date of reporting compliance to the Division Bench of this Court to come out of contempt, since in the understanding of the petitioner authorities treating them as Clerks, would be in defiance of the award in their favour. This was specifically agitated before the Division Bench at the time of disposal of the contempt proceedings but that aspect was not gone into by the Bench and liberty was reserved to raise the grievance in accordance with law before appropriate authority. 2.13 The above liberty was availed by those Clerks by approaching Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot again, which is the present round of litigation. The said Reference (IT) No. 127 of 2008 pertains to 23 such persons, of the above group of 34 persons. The said Reference is allowed by the impugned award dated 30.06.2012. 2.13 The above liberty was availed by those Clerks by approaching Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot again, which is the present round of litigation. The said Reference (IT) No. 127 of 2008 pertains to 23 such persons, of the above group of 34 persons. The said Reference is allowed by the impugned award dated 30.06.2012. By this award, the Tribunal has directed the petitioner authorities that, 23 workmen named in the operative part of the award, be paid wages of the post of Clerk, from the date they were so appointed by the Government, as per the policy of the Government. It is this award which is challenged by the same authorities before this Court. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Vishal Patel has contended that, as per the policy of the Government, only those Mazdoors, who were daily wagers, could be considered for appointment as Clerk but since these workmen were treated to be regular Mazdoors, they did not remain to be daily wagers and therefore they could not have been appointed as Clerk. It is further contended that the Tribunal has not properly considered this aspect and therefore the impugned award be quashed and set aside. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Clerk, learned advocate for the respondent Union has contended that the appointment of these persons on the post of Clerk was pursuant to their educational qualification and putting in service of more than seven years as Mazdoor and by the impugned award the Tribunal has corrected only the mistake committed, or the mischief played by the authorities, and therefore, no interference be made by this Court in this petition. Learned advocate for the respondent has further drawn the attention of this Court to the contents of para-13 of the affidavit-in-reply wherein names of nine similarly situated persons are given, who are continued as Clerk. It is further pointed out that, these nine persons are also part of the group of 34 persons, and even the numbers of their standing in the Reference is also given. It is recorded that, though against the said affidavit-in-reply dated 28.07.2013, rejoinder affidavit is also filed on behalf of the petitioner authorities on 13.08.2013, this aspect is not replied. Thus, the say of the respondent workmen has remained undisputed that even after committing illegality, which is cured by the Tribunal, the authorities have acted selectively and discriminatory. It is recorded that, though against the said affidavit-in-reply dated 28.07.2013, rejoinder affidavit is also filed on behalf of the petitioner authorities on 13.08.2013, this aspect is not replied. Thus, the say of the respondent workmen has remained undisputed that even after committing illegality, which is cured by the Tribunal, the authorities have acted selectively and discriminatory. It is contended that, in the facts of this case, even cost be imposed. 5. I Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, and more particularly in view of the facts as recorded in paras 3.1 to 3.13 above, this Court finds that, in substance, the contention of the petitioner State authorities is to the effect that, had these Mazdoors were not directed to be treated as regular Mazdoors by the Industrial Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation, or had the defiance of the award of the Industrial Tribunal dated 04.07.1997, which had continued for over a decade, was permitted to be defied further, then these persons were entitled to be continued as Clerk, but since this Court had insisted for the compliance of the said award, these persons rendered themselves ineligible to be continued as Clerk in the year 2008. This contention not only needs to be rejected but deprecated by this Court. The Tribunal has examined the entitlement of these workmen in the light of the policy of the Government in detail. Tribunal has recorded elaborate reasons in this regard. The mischief played by the petitioner authorities, while implementing the earlier award is rightly caught by the Tribunal and is so recorded by it in para-16 of the impugned award. This Court has gone through the reasons recorded by the Tribunal, so also the contents of para-16 of the award. This Court does not find any infirmity either in the reasons recorded by the Tribunal or in the conclusion arrived at by it. This court further finds that, the mischief played by the petitioner authorities ought not to have escaped notice of the Tribunal, and it has not. There is elaborate discussion by the Tribunal in that regard in para-16 of the award. Not only this Court does not find any error in it, but no other view could have been taken by the Tribunal. There is elaborate discussion by the Tribunal in that regard in para-16 of the award. Not only this Court does not find any error in it, but no other view could have been taken by the Tribunal. Thus, this Court finds that, on merits no interference is required in the impugned award of the Tribunal. After having held that, no interference is called for on merits in the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court also finds that, since it was only the mischief on the part of the petitioner authorities, as recorded and elaborated in paras: 3.10 to 3.12 above, which is cured by the Tribunal as noted above, there was no occasion for the State authorities to challenge the said award of the Tribunal, and therefore, this may warrant even imposition of cost against the petitioner authorities. While recording so, this Court has kept in view the observations of Honourable the Supreme Court of India in the case of Rakesh Kumar Goel vs. U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and Others, AIR 2010 SC 2451 which is to the effect that, filing of a petition before the Court of law is not like buying a lottery ticket that if luck favours, might bring a windfall, but would cost no more than the expenses of litigation. This petition is no exception to what is observed by Honourable the Supreme Court of India as recorded above. Further, this Court has also kept in view the observations of Honourable the Supreme Court of India in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association vs. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344 , which is to the effect that, judicial notice can be taken of the fact that many unscrupulous parties take advantage of the fact that either the costs are not awarded or nominal costs are awarded against the unsuccessful party, unfortunately it has become a practice to direct parties to bear their own costs, such a practice also encourages the filing of frivolous suits, it also leads to the taking up of frivolous defences. The dismissal of this petition in these facts, without imposing costs, would encourage filing of frivolous petitions and would also amount to shutting the eyes by this Court about the mischief played by the petitioner which is the State authorities, therefore this petition needs to be dismissed with costs. The dismissal of this petition in these facts, without imposing costs, would encourage filing of frivolous petitions and would also amount to shutting the eyes by this Court about the mischief played by the petitioner which is the State authorities, therefore this petition needs to be dismissed with costs. Therefore, in totality, this Court finds that, not only there is no infirmity in the impugned award, but this petition is required to be dismissed with costs. While awarding costs, one more factor is kept in view that, the costs needs to be awarded in favour of the 23 workmen whose names are referred to in the operative part of the impugned award of the Tribunal, however, all those 23 workmen are represented through the respondent Union, which is joined as a sole party respondent by the petitioner authorities. Therefore, in the operative part of this judgment and order, the costs is directed to be paid by the petitioner authorities to the sole respondent Union. 6. In the facts and circumstances and for the reasons recorded above, this Court arrives at the judgment and passes order as under: (a) there is no infirmity, either in the reasoning, or in the final award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot in Reference (IT) No. 127 of 2008 dated 30.06.2012, which is impugned in this petition. (b) the Tribunal has only set right the mischief, which was played by the petitioner authorities while reporting compliance to the Division Bench of this Court on 28.03.2008, about the implementation of the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot in Reference (IT) No. 374 of 1992 dated 04.07.1997, that too years after loosing before Honourable the Supreme Court of India, the details of which are recorded in paras 3.10 to 3.12 above and thus the present petition is a frivolous petition and therefore. (c) this petition is dismissed with costs. The petitioner authorities are directed to pay cost of Rs. 25,000/- to the respondent Union, within a period of two months from today. Notice is discharged. Petition Dismissed.