ORDER : Jayant Patel, J. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 04.09.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No.3828/02 and allied matters, whereby the learned Single Judge, for the reasons recorded in the order, has dismissed the petition. 2. We have heard Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants-orig. petitioners. 3. The contention raised was twofold. One was that the settlement was arrived at between the original petitioners and the respondent municipality before the Industrial Tribunal for grant of permanency benefit and the award passed was based on the said settlement and once the award was passed, the municipality could not terminate the services. The second limb of argument was that even if settlement did not exist, prior to the settlement, the original petitioners were working as daily wagers with the municipality and therefore the original petitioners should have been continued as daily wagers and even if the services were to be terminated as daily wagers, the retrenchment compensation was required to be paid which was not paid and therefore also, the termination would be bad in law. As per Mr. Mishra, the learned Single Judge did not properly consider the said aspect and this Court may consider in the present appeal. 4. We have gone through the memo of the petition. The whole tenor of the petition is that as there is settlement before the Industrial Tribunal and the award has been passed based thereon and the original petitioners were made permanent, their services cannot be terminated. There is no whisper about the payment of any retrenchment compensation as if the original petitioners were daily wagers. 5. On the aspects of making the award of the Industrial Tribunal as basis for asserting the right, the learned Single Judge has relied upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Amreli Municipality v. Gujarat Pradesh Municipal Employees Union reported in 2004(2) GLH 692 and more particularly the observations made at paragraph 12.1.3, which is reproduced by the learned Single Judge at paragraph 25 of the impugned judgment. Not only that, but the award of the Industrial Tribunal is set aside in the earlier proceedings of Special Civil Application No.5702/01 and 1340/02. Under these circumstances, the said question could not be agitated by the original petitioners. Not only that, but the award of the Industrial Tribunal is set aside in the earlier proceedings of Special Civil Application No.5702/01 and 1340/02. Under these circumstances, the said question could not be agitated by the original petitioners. Not only that, but the petitions filed by the former daily wagers were also rejected as recorded by the learned Single Judge. 6. Under these circumstances read with the reasons recorded by the learned Single Judge, we do not find that any case is made out for interference. 7. Hence, the appeal is meritless and therefore, dismissed. Letters Patent Appeal Dismissed.