JUDGMENT : S.R. Brahmbatt, J. Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties. The petitioners, by way of this petition have approached this Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India with following prayers; (A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction. (i) to direct respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to immediately implement the award dated 30.03.2009 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Bhavnagar in Reference (IT) Nos. 21, 22, 24 and 25 of 2006 as confirmed by this Hon'ble Court with further direction to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to immediately fix pay-scale of the petitioners by granting higher pay-scale benefits to the petitioners with effect from completion of nine years of service from 29.03.1985 and to pay arrears of the said higher pay-scale benefits with interest at the rate of 18% from 30.03.2009 till the date it is actually paid to the petitioners; (ii) to direct respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to fix pensionary benefits of the petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 on the basis of new fixation of higher pay-scale and to make payment of arrears of pension on the basis of new fixation of higher pay-scale with interest at the rate of 18% from the date when petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 have retired from service; (iii) to direct respondent No.4 to take immediate steps for breach of award against respondent Nos.1 to 3 and to initiate prosecution against said respondents for breach of award; (B) Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of the petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to immediately calculate the arrears of higher pay-scale payable to the petitioners with effect from completion of nine year of service from 29.03.1985 and to deposit the same before this Hon'ble Court; (C) Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of the petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct respondent No.4 to initiate proceedings against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for breach of award dated 30.03.2009 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Bhavnagar; (D) Any other and further relief or reliefs to which this Hon'ble Court deemed fit, in the interest of justice; may kindly be granted; Thus, the challenge in this petition is the non implementation or partial non implementation of the award dated 30.03.2009 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bhavnagar in Reference (IT) No.21,22,24,25 of 2006 and non granting the benefits of higher pay scale flowing therefrom and a direction is sought for initiating proceedings for breach of the award against the concerned. 2. This matter was time and again listed and there was request on the part of the learned advocates that the matter be heard finally, therefore, as it is recorded in the orders dated 10.11.2014 and 24.11.2014, the matter is to be decided finally. 3. Today, during the course of submission, learned advocates appearing for the parties are agreed for taking up this matter for final disposal. Hence, Rule. The service of notice of Rule is waived by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and Rule is fixed forthwith, as agreed. The affidavit in reply is filed. 4. Facts in brief leading to filing this petition, as could be gathered from the memo of the petition indicate that the petitioners were engaged as workcharge Junior Clerk with the respondent Board since long. Their services came to be terminated with effect from 29.03.1985. The petitioners have, therefore, raised disputes, which came to be culminated into judgment and award dated 21.07.1998, directing reinstatement with continuity of service and 80% backwages. That award dated 21.07.1998, was assailed by the respondent Board in this Court by way of petition, which came to be dismissed by this Court, against which the Special Leave Petition was preferred by the respondents. The Supreme Court did not disturb the order of reinstatement, however, reduced the quantum of backwages from 80% to 40%. The petitioners were not given benefits and hence they had to raise dispute one more time, which came to be allowed by the Industrial Tribunal dated 30.03.2009, ordering similar benefits by treating them to be permanent on the establishment with all benefits of permanent employees and with arrears from 29.03.1985. The respondent Board assailed even this order before this Court by way of S.C.A. No.7880 of 2009 and allied matters. The respondent Board assailed even this order before this Court by way of S.C.A. No.7880 of 2009 and allied matters. Initially while admitting the matters on 22.09.2009, this Court did not grant interim relief and hence the Board preferred Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A. No.483 of 2010 and allied matters. The Division Bench did not interfere with the order, but clarified the situation in the eventuality of the final outcome of the petition. On 23.07.2010, the petitioners were posted in the permanent establishment, as Junior Clerk, Class-III. As the petitioners perceived it to be non compliance with the order of the Court in Letters Patent Appeal, the present petitioners filed contempt petition being M.C.A. No.524 of 2011 before this Court, which was withdrawn. The clarification was filed, but that become infructuous because by the time, the main matters were disposed of by order dated 27.08.2012. In the meantime, the petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 on account of their attaining the age of superannuation, retired from services. The petitioners continuously attempted to receive all the benefits, especially benefit of higher pay scale on the basis of the fact that they were treated to be absorbed on the permanent establishment since 1985. The non granting of the higher pay scale had a telling effect of the fixation of pay also. The representation was made, which was turned down on 13.06.2014 on the ground that the petitioner no.1 had not passed departmental examination, which was meant to be pre-service training examination. The petitioners were not granted higher pay scale benefits right from 1994, as they have completed nine years of service in the permanent establishment. As, before the Division Bench, respondents were agreed that in case they loose in the petition, arrears would be paid with an appropriate rate of interest, as may be ordered. Even after dismissal of main petition, petitioners have not been granted arrears of higher pay-scale. Hence, this petition. 5. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners invited this Court's attention to the order passed by the Court, wherein the reference was allowed and petitioners were ordered to be absorbed in the permanent establishment from 29.03.1985. Even after dismissal of main petition, petitioners have not been granted arrears of higher pay-scale. Hence, this petition. 5. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners invited this Court's attention to the order passed by the Court, wherein the reference was allowed and petitioners were ordered to be absorbed in the permanent establishment from 29.03.1985. This order is though, unequivocally clear in its purport, the respondent authorities did not appreciate the same and for the reasons best known to them did not accord the benefit of higher pay scale relying upon extraneous consideration like the condition for seniority in which the passing of pre-service training examination is must for assigning seniority. 6. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted that the respondent authorities have created a deliberate anomalous situation where at one point they have been treated as having been absorbed in the services on permanent establishment from 29.03.1985, and on that basis even it is ordered that the pension be processed, whereas for the purpose of seniority the date of entry to be treated the date of acceptance of the award by the Board and passing of the order that happened to be 26.07.2010, though the award of the Labour Court was passed on 30.03.2009. 7. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners further submitted that the order passed by the concerned authority imparting condition of passing pre-service training examination itself was not tenable in eye of law, as it amounts to indirectly nullifying the benefits conferred upon the workmen on account of the decision and declaration in the award and confirmation by this Court. Therefore, the petitioners are required to be granted the benefit of higher pay scale and all other consequential benefits without being subjected to any condition which may on the face of it appear to be incapable of being fulfilled. 8. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent nos.1 to 3 contended that if one looks at the operative part of the award of the industrial Tribunal, then one would know that the Tribunal has not specifically awarded the benefit of higher pay scale. The respondents have extended all the benefits, which are automatically admissible flowing from the award. 8. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent nos.1 to 3 contended that if one looks at the operative part of the award of the industrial Tribunal, then one would know that the Tribunal has not specifically awarded the benefit of higher pay scale. The respondents have extended all the benefits, which are automatically admissible flowing from the award. The respondents are under an obligation to obey the Government regulations and even when the permanent employees are not clearing the pre-service training examination within the stipulated time period, they are not entitled to receive the benefit of higher pay scale. Therefore, that condition which has been incorporated in the order that on passing of preservice training the benefits could be granted, is just and proper. 9. Learned advocate for the respondent nos.1 to 3 further submitted that the benefit of higher pay scale flows from the scheme incorporated in the resolution dated 16.08.1994, and the relevant clause being Clause 3(2), would indicate that date of seniority from regular employment is not reckoned for counting completion of period of 9 years or the relevant period for receiving the higher pay scale benefit and in the instant case, the petitioners' seniority could not be reckoned from the year 1985 for want of non passing of pre-service training examination. Their seniority were treated to be from the date of the order passed by the authority implementing the award and when the petitioners did not object to it by filing objections, despite being invited the Court, may not now permit them to seek further relief irrespective of their seniority position. The benefit of regularisation would not ipso facto enure in granting benefit of higher pay scale also, as for earning the higher pay scale the requisite conditions are to be fulfilled and when regular employment is one of the condition, the same could not have been said to be fulfilled. There was glaring defect of non passing of pre-service training examination. Thus, while assessing the case of the petitioners, the respondent nos.1 to 3 were adhered to Government regulations and therefore, there is no scope on the part of the petitioners to make any grievance thereabout. There was glaring defect of non passing of pre-service training examination. Thus, while assessing the case of the petitioners, the respondent nos.1 to 3 were adhered to Government regulations and therefore, there is no scope on the part of the petitioners to make any grievance thereabout. The grant of higher pay scale, as per the Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994, is equivalent to granting the promotion to the concerned and, therefore, all the criterion applicable for realising the promotion will have to be taken into consideration and in the instant case five years record of A.C.R. will have to be material, as in the instant case the petitioners were in all together different establishment called workcharge establishment. There was no maintenance of A.C.R., which would be available for assessing the petitioners for their eligibility to be given higher pay scale, as envisaged under the policy. Therefore, on this count also, the petitioners were not entitled to receive higher pay scale automatically, as they claimed in the memo of petition. 10. This Court has heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and perused the record. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it would be most appropriate to set out herein below few indisputable aspects emerging therefrom as under; (i) The order and award dated 30.03.2009 rendered in reference in question contains specific discussion in respect of the anomalous in the treatment faced by the petitioners vis-a-vis the regular employees. The discussion in form of argument could be seen from paragraph no.41 onwards in the concluding portion of the award. The Court after recording its conclusion proceeded further with passing the final award. If one peruses the observations of the Court in paragraph no.41, then one would have no manner of doubt to appreciate that the higher pay scale was one of the benefit, which had been claimed in terms by the workmen in the reference. (ii) The Tribunal has thereafter proceeded further in respect of the date to be determined, wherefrom the benefits were to be made admissible to the workmen. The Tribunal has observed that on account of the termination on 29.03.1985 being declared illegal and the declaration being upheld by courts up to Supreme Court with minor changes and modifications, so far as the back wages are concerned, the same date was required to be treated as admissible date for the benefits. The Tribunal has observed that on account of the termination on 29.03.1985 being declared illegal and the declaration being upheld by courts up to Supreme Court with minor changes and modifications, so far as the back wages are concerned, the same date was required to be treated as admissible date for the benefits. The wordings and phraseology employed by the Court in the award unequivocally indicate that for all purposes the workmen were to be treated as a permanent employees since 29.03.1985. The entire reading of the award with special emphasis upon the observations on paragraph no.21 till the conclusion, would thus clearly indicate that there was no requirement of any more articulated direction, as sought to be canvassed on behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 3. The simple and plain reading of the award would indicate that all benefits admissible to the permanent employees were made admissible to the petitioners from 29.03.1985. (iii) These observations and directions were confirmed by the Court in its judgment and order dated 27.08.2012 and 07.09.2012, rendered in S.C.A. No.7880 of 2009 and allied matters, reproduced on the compilation from page no. 60 onwards. This judgment and order also do not contain any modification or deviation, nor did it whittle down the purport of the direction in any manner. In short the petitions were dismissed. This order has attained finality, as no further proceedings of any nature are reported to have been preferred by anyone. (iv) Thereafter the employer passed an order dated 12.04.2013. Now, this order contains four directions namely; (a) The workmen have to be made permanent with effect from 29.03.1985 and are to be granted all the benefits flowing therefrom. (b) As the workmen have been made permanent with effect from 29.03.1985, the benefit of higher pay scale is to be granted as per the prevalent rules. (c) If they pass the pre-service training examination in the stipulated chances, then their seniority will be reckoned from that date. (d) The admissible amount, if already paid, be deducted from the arrears, which is to be paid. (v) Thus, close reading of this order would indicate that the employees workmen were treated to be permanent from 29.03.1985 and were treated to be eligible for reserving even the benefit of higher pay scale in accordance with the prevalent rules. (d) The admissible amount, if already paid, be deducted from the arrears, which is to be paid. (v) Thus, close reading of this order would indicate that the employees workmen were treated to be permanent from 29.03.1985 and were treated to be eligible for reserving even the benefit of higher pay scale in accordance with the prevalent rules. However, a condition is imposed in form of (c) that the pre-service training examination is required to be passed for reckoning the seniority. (vi) This pre-service training examination envisages a requirement of imparting training and after the end of the training passing of the examination. In a given eventuality or exigency at times the employer used to engage and offer employment to the candidate without subjecting him to any training or a condition used to be incorporated that the pre-service training will have to be undergone and examination has to be passed, as could be seen from the record. The petitioners, who have been actually working since years and decades, have been treated to be eligible to be absorbed as permanent employee from the date i.e. 29.03.1985, then in that case they cannot be rendered handicapped on account of the lack of any training or examination, as in their cases, that condition itself was not required to be invoked. The condition is enuring for those who have been appointed by way of direct recruitment after the process, which is prescribed and if they are subjected to any training, then after the training is over, the examination is required to be passed and it is not controverted by anyone that so far as, Gujarat Maritime Board is concerned, the examination called pre-service training examination after absorption of the present petitioners, not a single time the examination was held nor was there any order of seeking these employees for pre-service training examination. When the employees were not required to undergo pre-service training examination, then naturally there could not have been any question of their passing the pre-service training examination. In my view, the incorporation of that condition was redundant and unfortunate. (vii) The facts remain to be noted that three employees were retired. When the employees were not required to undergo pre-service training examination, then naturally there could not have been any question of their passing the pre-service training examination. In my view, the incorporation of that condition was redundant and unfortunate. (vii) The facts remain to be noted that three employees were retired. In their cases, the question of their fixing of pension, at that time, is in order to see to it that no impediment is created, the exemption was granted, as it is usually granted to all as the factum remains to be noted that there was no training or pre-service training examination. Therefore, this action of the Board is also required to be viewed in appropriate perspective. 11. Against the backdrop of aforesaid almost indisputable aspect, question arises as to whether in a case on hand when it has come out unequivocally on record that there was no pre-service training in case of even other employees of the Board, could there have been any legitimate justification for insisting upon passing of pre-service training examination, which were never held after the order of regularization, had been passed. Therefore, in that view of the matter withholding the benefit of higher pay scale would bring about an absolute anomalous situation resulting into heart burning and treating the petitioners as if they are granted benefit of regularisation without the benefit of higher pay scale. 12. The fact remains to be noted that the requirement of pre-service training examination, as it is repeatedly observed herein above, is only in the eventuality when the training is imparted and in case if the mode of recruitment is that of direct selection and if it is warranted, then in that situation the candidate is subjected to pre-service training and thereafter he has to pass the pre-service training examination. In the instant case, the employees have been ordered to be absorbed since 1985 and if in 1985 there was no pre-service training, then there could not have been any insistence upon any examination. Assuming for the sake of examining without holding that there existed a requirement of training, then also without imparting training to the petitioners, they could not have been called upon to pass pre-service training examination. Assuming for the sake of examining without holding that there existed a requirement of training, then also without imparting training to the petitioners, they could not have been called upon to pass pre-service training examination. In other words, such an insistence would amount to saying that though no training is imparting to you, you have to pass the pre-service training examination, which would be onerous and unjustified on the part of the concerned. Therefore, from any angle the insistence of pre-service training examination and its passing is unfortunate and uncalled for. The order of absorption of the petitioners as a permanent employees is not on any condition. Had there been so, it would have been clarified in the order itself. When the order is absolutely silent, as there would have been no pleading on this aspect that there was a requirement of imparting training and there was a requirement of candidates clearing the pre-service training examination and in absence thereof at least their absorption be made conditional and it would have been accepted, then it would be surely a different scenario. In the instant case, the entire pleadings, as recorded by the Industrial Tribunal, would indicate that there was never ever any argument on this aspect, nor was there any pleadings that their absorption is required to be made conditional on their passing the pre-service training examination. In fact, passing of pre-service training examination is not treated as a condition precedent by the respondents themselves, as had it been so they would have never passed that order or rather sought appropriate direction from the concerned Court. The order passed incorporating the condition, therefore, in my view, is required to be viewed in its proper perspective. 13. The order of absorption with a given date and putting the present petitioners at par with all the concerned employees, who were receiving benefit of permanent employees, could not have been denied the benefit of higher pay scale on a ground of non passing of the pre-service training examination. It is reiterated at the cost of repetition that when there is no question of passing of pre-service training examination, it is not the case of the Board that they were called upon to undergo a training nor was there any requirement of condition of appearing in the training or receiving the training before they be regularized, therefore, they were rightly regularized. The order of regularisation and absorption is rightly made, however, it was unfortunate that the condition was incorporated for passing pre-service training examination only for reckoning the seniority i.e. for the purpose of fixing the seniority, but that in itself would not militate against the employees petitioners, receiving the benefit of higher pay scale, as it is amounting to their entitlement on they being treated at par. Had there been a training, then there would have been requirement of passing the examination at the end of the training. In the instant case, nowhere it is mentioned that there were ever a training, besides the court has to take into consideration the fact that after the age of 45 years, the departmental examinations are also not to be initiated upon for passing, though, if that reasoning is available for only departmental examination, the same would be available for the present petitioners, as the factum of absorption could not have been based upon passing of any pre-service training examination. The order of Tribunal is passed, which has not made passing of the examination as a condition for absorption and, therefore, insistence of passing of the pre-service training without imparting any training or holding any examination would work as a tremendous hardship of the employees and it would amount to create an exception in the order and direction which is none and, therefore, the Court is inclined to partly allow this petition and issue following directions; The respondents are hereby directed to examine the cases of the petitioners and if on their record there is nothing adverse disqualifying them from being considered for promotion, then they be granted higher pay scale without insisting upon their passing of any pre-service training examination, as it is not required as per the award rendered and upheld by this Court. The entire exercise be over within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of this order. 14. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Writ Petition partly allowed with directions.