JUDGMENT S.R. Brahmbhatt, J. 1. In this group of five petitions, the employer - municipality, has assailed the order and award passed by the concerned Labour Court, whereunder the employer is directed to treat the workman as regular employee and granted all the benefits including arrears and difference of wages and other consequential benefits on the ground that the workman had been working continuously and the was so perennial in nature. The Civil Applications have been filed by the workman seeking various reliefs, therefore, all these matters were clubbed together and heard and now are being disposed of by the present common judgment and order. The facts in respect of all the matters, as could be culled out from the memo of petition and date of events succinctly depicted in tabular manner as under: Sr. The facts in respect of all the matters, as could be culled out from the memo of petition and date of events succinctly depicted in tabular manner as under: Sr. No. Particulars Zaverbhai D. Vaghela SCA Kurjibhai B. Vaghela SCA Ghughabhai B. Vaghela Raghvji P. Vaghela Velji Premji Vaghela No.12413 of 2009 No.12414 of 2009 SCA No. 12416 of 2009 SCA No. 12417 of 2009 SCA No. 12412 of 2009 1 Date of joining 03/03/96 18/04/97 18/04/97 18/04/97 03/03/96 2 Designation PAGI (WATCHMAN) in Water Works LABOUR PAGI (WATCHMAN) in Water Works Department PUMPMAN in Water Works Department PUMPMAN in Water Works Department 3 Date of joining 04/08/06 04/08/06 04/08/06 04/08/06 04/08/06 4 Conciliation Case No. & Date of Failure Report 40 of 2006 19.12.2007 42 of 2006 19.12.2007 43 of 2006 19.12.2007 45 of 2006 19.12.2007 41 of 2006 19.12.2007 5 Date of Reference 13.03.2007, Reference (IT) No.16 of 2007 13.03.2007, Reference (IT) No.17 of 2007 13.03.2007, Reference (IT) No.19 of 2007 13.03.2007, Reference (IT) No.20 of 2007 Reference (IT) No.15 of 2007 6 Date of Statement of claim 17.04.2007 17.04.2007 17.04.2007 17.04.2007 17.04.2007 7 Date of Written Statement 07/01/08 07/01/08 07/01/08 07/01/08 07/01/08 8 Date of oral evident by the workman 04.09.2008, cross on 18.09.2008 04.09.2008, cross on 18.09.2008 04.09.2008, cross on 18.09.2008 04.09.2008, cross on 18.09.2008 04.09.2008, cross on 18.09.2008 9 Date of oral evidence of Municipality 19.11.2008 19.11.2008 19.11.2008 19.11.2008 19.11.2008 10 Date of final award 09/04/09 09/04/09 09/04/09 09/04/09 09/04/09 11 Direction in the Award To make permanent concerned workman as Paggi with effect from 02.03.2001 and pay all benefits with arrears including Grade Pay payable to permanent Paggi within one month of the publication of award To make permanent concerned workman as Labour with effect from 17.04.2002 and pay all benefits with arrears including Grade Pay payable to permanent Labour within one month of the publication of award To make permanent concerned as Paggi with effect from17.04.2002 and pay all benefits with arrears including Grade Pay payable to permanent Paggi within one month of the publication of award To make permanent workman concerned workman as Pumpman with effect from 17.07.2002 and pay all benefits with arrears including Grade Pay payable to permanent Pumpman within one month of the publication of award To make permanent concerned workman as Pumpman with effect from 03.03.2001 and pay all benefits with arrears including Grade Pay payable to permanent Pumpman within one month of the publication of award 12 Date of filing of petition 22.11.2009 (SCA) No.12413 of 2009) 22.11.2009 (SCA) No.12414 of 2009) 22.11.2009 (SCA) No.12416 of 2009) 22.11.2009 (SCA) No.12417 of 2009) 22.11.2009 (SCA) No.12412 of 2009) 13 Date of admission of petition 12/03/10 12/03/10 12/03/10 12/03/10 12/03/10 14 Date of Civil Application for early final hearing 09/09/11 09/09/11 09/09/11 09/09/11 09/09/11 15 Date of Rejection of Civil Application 19.09.2011 19.09.2011 19.09.2011 19.09.2011 19.09.2011 16 Date of present Civil Application 15.03.2015 (CA 3131 of 2015) 15.03.2015 (CA 3134 of 2015) 15.03.2015 (CA 3133 of 2015) 15.03.2015 (CA 3132 of 2015) 15.03.2015 (CA 7841 of 2015) 2. Thus, essentially above indicated facts would go to show that the workman's claim treatment at bar, with other workmen on account of they being continuously working and discharging their duties in respect of the work, which was found to be perennial in nature, not treating them as permanent employee, was said to be unfair labour practice, so as to hit by the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 3. The learned advocate appearing for the Municipality contended that the Labour Court erred in not appreciating the fact that Municipality has to work under the provisions of Municipality Act and the recruitment procedure as prescribed, which is required to be followed, which would indicate that the workman, if has not undergone the specific procedure, is not entitle to seek any benefit of regularization. 4. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the Labour Court has not appreciated the set up position as it was required to appreciate that in absence of any set up and the vacancy, Labour Court could not have ordered for regularization of the workman in this group of petitions. 5. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that in a case of Pump Operator, the set up, produced on the record of this matter would indicate that the said post is not available. The non appreciation of this fact by the Court has rendered the decision vitiated. 6. It was further submitted that the decision rendered in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi (3) and Others, AIR 2006 SC 1806 : (2006) 4 SCC 1 : LNIND 2006 SC 261 : (2006) 2 MLJ 326 : 2006-II-LLJ-722, could not have been overlooked by the Court, as there existed no right for the workman to seek regularization. 7. Learned advocate for the petitioner further contended that the decision cited at the bar, on behalf of the respondents - workman, though have been rendered by the Supreme Court after the decision of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi (3) and Others (supra), the ratio of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi (3) and Others (supra), is not whittle down or affect in any manner. Therefore, it remains to be noted that the settled proposition of law could not have been ignored so as to give relief to the workman in the establishment like Municipality, which is governed by such provisions of law and it has to avail due procedure of law for regularization and recruitment of employees. 8. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai v. Thiru R. Govindaswamy and Others 2014 Law Suit (SC) 125 : (2014) 4 SCC 769 : LNINDORD 2014 SC 6055 : 2014-II-LLJ-1 submitted that the Court's power to regularize or order of regularization of an employee, not duly appointed, is not to be found. The learned advocate invited Court's attention to the paragraph 3 and subsequent paragraphs to support his contention that there exists no power for directing regularization, when the concerned employee is not appointed in accordance with law. The mere length of service, as itself would not be a covering factor for ordering regularization. The Supreme Court while rendering the judgment in case of Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai v. Thiru R. Govindaswamy and Others (supra) placed heavy emphasis upon the observation made by the Supreme Court in case of secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi (3) and Others (supra). The decision rendered by the Supreme Court in case of Union of India and Another v. Ram Singh Thakur and Others 2011 Law Suit (SC) 766 : LNIND 2011 SC 658 and in the other decisions which were placed, wherein, it was urged that the award and order of the Court be quashed and set aside as it contains directions contrary to law for which the Court was not competent. 9. The learned advocate for the petitioner invited Court's attention to the observations of Supreme Court in case of Union of India and Another v. Ram Singh Thakur and Others (supra), which in view of the learned advocate also reiterated the same proposition of law, which have been set out in above and, therefore, this Court need not to elaborate this aspect at this stage. 10. 10. Learned advocate for the petitioner therefore, contended that the order and award impugned in this group of petitions, so far as it contains directions to regularize the employee and workman, deserves to be quashed and set aside and petitions are required to be allowed. 11. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent - workman contended that decision rendered by the Supreme Court based upon the ratio of the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi (3) and Others (supra) would be of no avail to the petitioner for assailing the award and order in question. The learned advocate for the respondent-workman contended that all the matters were infact pertains to the perennial nature of work performed by the workman in the establishment, where it was not proved by the employer that the work was seasonal or otherwise. 12. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent - workman contended that the observations rendered by the Supreme Court in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi (3) and Others (supra), are required to be viewed from the angle of the establishment and the nature of the ownership of establishment and the direction seeking regularization in absence of specific plea flowing from the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 13. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent - workman submitted that the ratio laid down in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi (3) and Others (supra) pertains to workman seeking some relief of regularization in governmental institutions that would be appropriately in breach or flouting of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, therefore, the decision rendered on the basis of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi (3) and Others (supra), cited at the bar, on behalf of the petitioner - employer, would be of no avail. 14. 14. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent - workman invited Court's attention to the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Kalol Municipality and Another v. Shantabehn Kalidas and Others 1993 (2) GLH 255 : LNIND 1993 GUJ 82 255 : 1994-II-LLJ-362 in support of the submissions that when the workman is raising disputes against the municipality bodies and invoking provisions of Section 2K and 10, the matter would essentially be governed by the provisions of Industrial Law, though the adjudication may essentially between the parties, but the power of Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court to dispute, is not curtailed in any manner, on account of the municipalities in capacity to amend the rules without concurrence of State. This decision was pressed into service to canvass the aspect that the employer - municipality is required to be treated as an employer industry as it could be seen from the provisions of industrial law and as such it is not absolve of its primary obligation to be abide by the provisions of industrial law, therefore, when the workman claims and establishes the right to be treated as regular employee based upon the perennial nature of work, then the municipality, in capacity to amend the rules, even if it is Recruitment Rules, would not be of any avail to the municipality for denying the benefit to the workman. 15. The learned advocate appearing for the respondent workman submitted that relying upon the decision of Supreme Court in case of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Another v. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana (2009) 8 SCC 556 : 2006-II-LLJ-283 submitted that the ratio of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi (3) and Others (supra) would not rob the statutory authority of their obligation, flowing from the Industrial Disputes Act. Learned advocate invited Court's attention to the observations made in paragraphs 30, 32, 47 and 48 in support of the submissions. 16. Thereafter, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent - workman invited Court's attention to the decision of Supreme Court in case of Umrala Gram Panchayat v. Secretary Municipal Employees Union and Others 2015 (0) AIJEL SC 56358 : LNIND 2015 SC 215 : 2015-II-LLJ-403 in support of his submissions that the Labour Court's power are not restricted in any manner on account of status of the employer or ownership of the employer's establishment. The Labour Court's power flowing from the Industrial Disputes Act, which would entitle the Court to issue appropriate directions, if workman establishes the breach of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court's power to mould the relief and grant even regularization, would not be in any manner affect on account of municipality's invoking the provisions of Recruitment Rules and contended that the original appointment was not in consensus therewith. 17. The learned advocate appearing for the respondent thereafter invited this Court's attention to the decision of Supreme Court rendered in case of Durgapur Casual Workers Union and Others v. Food Corporation of India and Others 2015 1 CLR 379: LNINDORD 2015 SC 3426: (2015) 5 SCC 786 : 2015-I-LLJ-160, which proposition of law was relied upon in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi (3) and Others (supra). The workman could not be denied the benefit and protection under the Industrial Disputes Act on account of the corporation status being statutory in nature. The unfair labour practice indicates that the workman cannot be kept on tenterhook on uncertainty, in case of the work in nature and same is perennial. 18. The learned advocate thereafter relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in case of Amarkant Rai v. State of Bihar 2015 (0) AIJELSC 56346 : LNIND 2015 SC 163: 2015-II-LLJ-1 submitted that employer while engaging workman de hoarse permitted of law and cannot be permitted doing wrong and protection of Industrial Disputes Act. The learned advocate also invited Court's attention to the original decision in case of Umrala Gram Panchayat v. Secretary Municipal Employees Union and Others (supra), wherefrom the proceedings lay before the Supreme Court, which rendered the decision, which is cited on his behalf of and in support of his contention. The learned advocate has relied upon the judgment of learned Single Judge and Division Bench in the case of Umrala Gram Panchayat v. Secretary Municipal Employees Union and Others (supra) and contended that even the learned Single Judge did not in turn refer to unfair labour practice aspect and the Division Bench did not disturb the same nor the Supreme Court held otherwise. 19. 19. The learned advocate for the respondent - workman, therefore, urged that in light of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, when workman could establish successfully that the nature of work is perennial and when the set up also hook vacancy to plea of so called procedure, not being followed, may not persuade this Court for interfering with the decision impugned in this petition. 20. This Court has perused the petitions, annexures and the impugned award. The fact remains to be noted that all these matters are arising out of the Labour Court's award rendered in References, wherein the workman's claim for benefit of regularization and permanency on account of the work being perennial in nature and existing posts are to be continued. The observations, in case of Bangalore Water Supply (supra), have till date been inuring, which would not permit municipality or the statutory authorities, engaged in such type of work free being absolve of its liability, arising out of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. Once the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are said to have been applicable on all the aspects, the workman - employee's claim of the right, flowing from the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, cannot be denied on account of the so called non following of provisions of Recruitment Rules or recruitment procedures. The Court has to add here that the observation in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi (3) and Others (supra), also acknowledges the distinction between the "irregular employee" or "illegal employee" and has observed that the same treatment is not required to be gone to both as there was scope engaged so far as the irregularity of employees is concerned, but one needs to be set mind fully as explained by the Supreme Court in the judgment cited at bar. The ratio of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi (3) and Others (supra), case is required to be viewed only in establishment's discretion thereof, but in a case where the department and/or government institutions, agency is treated as industry and as unable to observe itself its primary liability to answer the obligations, arising from the Industrial Disputes Act, then the same is required to be treated as a industry despite there being a statutory status, as the Industrial Disputes Act would not permit the department industry to flout the law and provisions of Industrial Tribunal Act on the specious plea of their recruitment procedures prescribed under the Rules. The Industrial Disputes Act and its provisions and the pronouncement of judgment thereon by the Supreme Court shall govern the field and therefore, in compliance thereof, when there is a direction of regularization based upon the specific findings and establishing the workman qua breach of Industrial Disputes Act, which is also established to be a part of a design for depriving the workman of his legitimate right to receive adequate wages which otherwise are admissible to the recruited employee or fellow employee, would required to be appreciate in proper perspective. 21. If one bears the aforesaid proposition in mind and examine the award in this petition, one would be required to note that in all the cases, the workmen have successfully established before the Court that the nature of their work was perennial. The work was infact qua lenient to other fellow workmen, who are regular employees and the wages and benefits admissible to regular employees, who are not accorded to the workman, are clearly hit by the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, which enjoys upon even the private employer not to indulge into unfair labour practice as when the perennial labour is existing then workman cannot be tenterhook as a daily wager only with a view to deprive him to the benefit of permanency and/or he will have little more receive comforts for efficiently discharging his duties, as against, the status of workman on daily wages, which would render him absolutely uncertain in its employment and would deprive him all the benefits and other benefits which are otherwise admissible to the regular employee. 22. 22. The Court has in all the matters recorded its findings unequivocally qua the aforesaid aspect and therefore, the direction issued by the Labour Court based upon such findings, cannot be said to be illegal or untenable, nor the same could be classified to be perverse, so as to call for any interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 23. As a result thereof, the petitions being meritless deserve rejection and are accordingly rejected. The Court, therefore, of the opinion that Labour Court's decision needs no interference. The petitions stand rejected. It is hoped that in absence of any challenge of this judgment, in further proceedings, the employer shall accord the benefits without any further delay. Rule discharged. The Civil Applications are seeking various reliefs pending the petitions, therefore, when the Court is disposing all the matters, no further orders are required to be passed and they are disposed of accordingly.