Judgment K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. Heard Mr. Vishal Thakker, learned advocate appearing for the appellants and Mr. Harsheel Shukla as well as Mr. Rakesh Patel, learned AGPs appearing for respondent No. 1. This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 15.09.2014 passed in Special Civil Application No. 18897 to 18929 of 2011 whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petitions filed by respondent No. 1 - original petitioner and quashed and set aside the award passed by the Labour Court. 2. In the writ petitions being Special Civil Applications No. 18897 to 18929 of 2011, challenge is made to the common order passed by the Labour Court, Bhavnagar dated 19.10.2010 in Recovery Applications being Recovery Application Nos. 135 to 167 of 1999 whereby the Labour Court has directed payment of wages to the workmen pursuant to the reinstatement award. The learned Single Judge quashed and set aside the impugned orders passed by the Labour Court. Hence the present appeals have been filed. 3. Mr. Vishal Thakker, learned advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the respondents challenged the award passed in recovery application for the amount towards salary of the appellants after the order of reinstatement awarded by the Labour Court, Bhavnagar in Lok Adalat held in the year 1994. He submitted that the appellants have been deprived of their legitimate monetary gains and job for these many years. He submitted that the order of recovery passed by the Labour Court was previously challenged before this Court vide way of Special Civil Application No. 1838 to 1870 of 1998 wherein this Court remanded the matter to the Labour Court vide order dated 04.07.2001. He submitted that the learned AGP in those proceedings had made a statement that the authority shall comply with the proposal of reinstatement within two months from the receipt of the copy of the order. He submitted that the appellants are fighting since 1987 for their legitimate rights. 4. Learned AGPs submitted that the Labour Court vide the impugned orders, directed payment of wages for that period, for which neither the concerned workmen were in service, nor they were otherwise, legally entitled to get wages. It is submitted that this Court may not interfere with the impugned order as the same is just and proper and in accordance with law. 5. It is submitted that this Court may not interfere with the impugned order as the same is just and proper and in accordance with law. 5. The reasons given by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition of the respondent -original petitioner are extracted as below: "6.1 The basis of the Recovery Applications was the common award of the Labour Court, Bhavnagar dated 29.03.1995 in Reference No. 732 of 1987 and cognate References. The basis of the said award was the settlement between the parties as recorded on 20.11.1994, as reflected in the award, which is also reflected in the impugned orders. As per the said settlement, the concerned workmen were to be given appointment, as per the availability of vacancies, keeping in view their inter-se seniority. As per the said award, appointments were given to the respective workmen, keeping in view the availability of posts and inter-se seniority. Before appointment, the concerned workmen had given an undertaking to the effect that, he forgoes back-wages and also that, he would not press, and withdraw the Recovery Application. It is the said Recovery Application, on which the impugned order is passed. The impugned order, in this background, is not sustainable. 6.2 Further, the award of the Labour Court was not for reinstatement in service, it was for giving appointment, as per availability of posts, keeping in view the inter-se seniority. As per the said award, subsequently, appointment orders are issued to the concerned workmen. The said appointment orders are not challenged before any forum, on any count, including that the same ought to have been given earlier. Thus, the total period can be divided into two parts i.e. (i) the period for which the respondents have rendered service after date of appointment order, and (ii) the period prior thereto, which according to the workmen, they ought to have been treated to be in service. The impugned orders passed on the Recovery Applications pertain to the period, which according to the respondents, they should have been treated to be in service prior to the date of their appointment. On the face of the appointment orders, which are subsequent in point of time in all the cases, there was no base for respondents to file Recovery Applications, nor was there any legal basis for the Labour Court to accept the said claim. On the face of the appointment orders, which are subsequent in point of time in all the cases, there was no base for respondents to file Recovery Applications, nor was there any legal basis for the Labour Court to accept the said claim. In this factual background, this Court finds that, the impugned orders are passed by the Labour Court on the Recovery Applications for the period during which neither the workmen were in service, nor were otherwise legally entitled to wages. The impugned orders therefore are unsustainable. 6.3 Though this Court has found, as recorded above, that on merits the workmen were not entitled to, what was claimed by them, it is also required to be noted that, the concerned workmen can not be permitted to agitate at this stage, standing as respondents in these petitions, that the concession in the form of the undertaking given by them would not bind them. If the workmen step back from the undertaking, the very basis of the appointment order would go, since the appointment of each workman was also based on it, as referred to in the respective appointment order, which is reflected in the impugned order of the Labour Court as well. On this additional count also, the impugned order is unsustainable." It is required to be noted that the Labour Court had directed that as and when the vacancies arise, reinstatement be granted to the workmen. The award passed was for giving appointment, as per availability of posts, keeping in view the inter-se seniority. As per the said award, subsequently, appointment orders are issued to the concerned workmen. The said appointment orders are not challenged before any forum, on any count. In fact the recovery applications itself were not maintainable. We agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge and do not find any reason to take a contrary view. The appeals are, therefore, devoid of any merits and are accordingly dismissed. Appeal Dismissed.