JUDGMENT 1. - This matter has been received after remand by the Supreme Court to decide the Special Appeal, afresh, as in the opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the judgment passed by the Division Bench, dated 21.11.2005, is cryptic. 2. An industrial dispute was raised by late Shri Sanwarmal, appellant, who has since died in the year 2001, and has been substituted by his legal heirs and representatives, claiming regular pay scale with effect from 01.04.1982, when he was appointed as driver on daily wages in Nagar Palika, Nawalgarh. The State Government referred the industrial dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur (Case No. I.T. 30/92, 28/96), to decide the question as to whether it was valid not to allow regular pay scale to the applicant, Sanwarmal S/o Shri Pokarmal by the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika, Nawalgarh, with effect from 01.04.1981, and if the answer is in negative, then to which relief the applicant is entitled to receive from the employer. 3. By an award dated 15.04.1997, it was held that since the appellant had completed 240 days of service, and was qualified and eligible, he was entitled to regular pay scale on the vacant post, on which he was appointed and had started working from 12.07.1980, and on which he is still working and has completed 10 years of service and thus, he should be awarded regular pay scale with effect from 01.04.1982, which was the date, from which the appellant had claimed regular salary. 4. A writ petition filed by the employer, challenging the award of the Tribunal, was allowed by the learned Single Judge on 10.01.2001, with the finding that the judgment of Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi (as he then was), dated 18.03.1994, setting aside the termination of the appellant, and by which no relief for regularisation of salary was given, had become final between the parties. The appellant was not given the benefit of regularization, or regular salary and thus, the Industrial Tribunal could not have overreached the judgment in making the award, directing the non-petitioner to be entitled to receive regular pay scale with effect from 01.04.1982. 5. The appellant was not given the benefit of regularization, or regular salary and thus, the Industrial Tribunal could not have overreached the judgment in making the award, directing the non-petitioner to be entitled to receive regular pay scale with effect from 01.04.1982. 5. The Special Appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, was allowed by a short judgment dated 21.11.2005, in which the Division Bench held that the employer did not lead any evidence, and that in absence of any evidence led by the employer, the claim of the workman ought to have been accepted and thus, the award did not require interference. 6. The Supreme Court in its order dated 29.04.2010, passed in Civil appeal No. 3074/2007- Municipal Board, Navalgarh v. Sarvani & Others , observed as follows:- "Heard learned counsel for the appellant. No one is present on behalf of the respondents, though the name of Mr. Debasis Misra, Advocate has been shown in the cause list. Having gone through the impugned order of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court dated 21st November, 2005, we are of the opinion that the impugned order is a cryptic one and does not discuss the reasons given in the order of the learned Single Judge dated 10th January, 2001 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 47/1998, which it has set aside. On this ground alone, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order of the Division Bench of the High Court and remit the matter to the Division Bench for passing a fresh detailed speaking order in accordance with law and after hearing both the parties. No costs." 7. We have gone through the pleadings, the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal and the judgment of the learned Single Judge, and do not find that the learned Single Judge committed any error of law in allowing the writ petition and in setting aside the award of the Industrial Tribunal. 8. Late Shri Sanwarmal, appellant, was appointed in Nagar Palika, Nawalgarh, as tractor driver on daily wages in the year 1980. His services were terminated on 01.04.1982. He raised an industrial dispute, which was decided by a compromise in Lok Adalat in Case No. 90/1983, in which the employer agreed that termination of the services of the appellant was not in accordance with law. His services were terminated on 01.04.1982. He raised an industrial dispute, which was decided by a compromise in Lok Adalat in Case No. 90/1983, in which the employer agreed that termination of the services of the appellant was not in accordance with law. It was decided that the workman will appear before the employer for employment on 01.10.1989 and will be reinstated as tractor driver. It was also settled that the workman will receive the benefit of 50% of the back wages from 01.04.1982 to 30.09.1989. In compliance with the settlement in Lok Adalat, the appellant was taken back in the employment on 20.10.1989. 9. The appellant's services were again terminated on 24.10.1991 on the ground of unauthorized absence for a period of more than three weeks. The appellant made an application on the ground of his illness on 28.07.1991, on which he was required to produce a medical certificate. He made another application for leave on 29.07.1991, which was rejected by the Nagar Palika, Nawalgarh on 08.08.1991 with an information to him that he should produce a medical certificate, failing which legal action will be taken against him. The appellant again made an application for leave on 12.08.1991 along with medical certificate, which was not allowed and ultimately, his services were terminated by the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika, Nawalgarh on 24.10.1991, in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act). Since his services were terminated by way of punishment without any enquiry, he was entitled to be reinstated with back wages. 10. Learned Single Judge, by a long and detailed judgment, allowed the writ petition. The order terminating the services of the appellant dated 24.10.1991, was declared as illegal on the ground that the order was punitive in nature and in any case, it could not have been passed without compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. No charge-sheet was given to him, nor any domestic enquiry was held before his services were terminated, and in the circumstances, his termination could not be treated as retrenchment from service. Learned Single Judge declared the order of termination of the services of the workman, dated 24.10.1991, as illegal and accordingly, directed his reinstatement in service. So far as back wages is concerned, the workman was given liberty to take steps under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. 11. Learned Single Judge declared the order of termination of the services of the workman, dated 24.10.1991, as illegal and accordingly, directed his reinstatement in service. So far as back wages is concerned, the workman was given liberty to take steps under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. 11. In this background, the workman raised an industrial dispute before the Industrial Tribunal, which came to be decided in his favour. 12. We have examined the award and find that the entire award is based on a Government Order, which provided that if an employee is working on daily wages/fixed wages from 31.12.1986 and holds educational qualification and is eligible, which include age also, he may be, after the screening committee has found him suitable, entitled to regular pay scale, if he is appointed on a vacant post in accordance with the staffing pattern. The Government Order further provided that for the purpose of giving regular pay scale, no additional post will be sanctioned in any Nagar Parishad/Palika. 13. After having quoted the Government Order, the Industrial Tribunal proceeded to hold that since the workman had completed 240 days of service, and was eligible holding educational qualifications, and fulfills all conditions, and further since he is working on a vacant post, he may be given regular pay scale. The Tribunal thereafter observed that since the workman was working continuously with effect from 12.07.1980 and is still working for last more than 10 years, having completed 240 days service in a year, for which no denial was made by the employer that he is not qualified or eligible, he is entitled to the regular pay scale. 14. In our view, learned Single Judge did not commit any error in setting aside the award of the Industrial Tribunal. The Industrial Tribunal after referring to the policy of the State Government to give regular pay scale to those, who were qualified and eligible, and were working since 31.12.1986, after the screening committee found them suitable, in absence of any evidence of his eligibility proceeded to award regular pay scale only on the ground that the employer did not give any effective reply that the employee was not eligible or did not possess educational qualification. The Industrial Tribunal failed to consider that for providing regular pay scale, a screening committee was required to find out whether the workman was eligible and suitable for the post, which was vacant. 15. In the present case, though the appellant was engaged in a long drawn battle, in which twice the termination orders were set aside, his eligibility including age and suitability for regular pay scale was never examined. He died in the year 2001, leaving behind the present appellants as the legal heirs and representatives. He had served on daily wages upto the date when he would have attained the age of superannuation, but since he was never considered for regular pay scale in accordance with the Government Order, which provided screening test to consider his eligibility and suitability including the age, the award to give him regular pay scale with effect from 01.04.1982, cannot be legally sustained. 16. In view of the above, we do not find that the learned Single Judge has committed any error in allowing the writ petition and setting aside the award of the Industrial Tribunal. 17. The Special Appeal is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******