JUDGMENT : Vipul M. Pancholi, J. By way of this appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellants-original respondents seek to challenge the order dated 15.3.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.17721 of 2015, by which the learned Single Judge has allowed the petition and thereby held that the oral termination of the petitioner no.2 is illegal and directed to reinstate him with continuity of service with consequential benefits but without any back wages. It was also directed to work out the benefits flowing from Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and the same be given to the petitioner no.2. 2. Brief facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under: 2.1 It is the case of the petitioners that petitioners and identically situated employees working in the Forest & Environment Department had preferred Special Civil Application No.6879 of 2014 seeking direction for grant of benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. Learned Single Judge, by an order dated 7.5.2014, disposed off the said petition by giving certain directions. It was directed to the original respondents that they shall examine the case of the petitioners individually and if found eligible, the benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 be extended to them as per the direction given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was also directed to carry out the said exercise within a stipulated time limit. However, the respondent-authorities have not taken any steps in pursuance to the direction given by the learned Single Judge of this Court, petitioner no.2 along with other original petitioners preferred Miscellaneous Civil Application No.3292 of 2014 under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. It was also directed to carry out the said exercise within a stipulated time limit. However, the respondent-authorities have not taken any steps in pursuance to the direction given by the learned Single Judge of this Court, petitioner no.2 along with other original petitioners preferred Miscellaneous Civil Application No.3292 of 2014 under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. The Division Bench of this Court disposed off the said application filed under the Contempt of Courts Act by making the following observations in paragraph 3 of the said order: "3.Considering the affidavit-in-reply and when the respective applicants have started getting the revised salary from November, 2014 and a statement has been made on oath that the benefits of scheme obtained in the Government Resolution dated 17/10/1988 to all the eligible labourers of the Forest and Environment Department, including the members of the applicant PWD Employees Union, shall be granted with all consequential benefits including the arrears, on or before 31/10/2015, and when necessary steps are already initiated and taken and the beneficiaries seems to be large number of employees, i.e. 4237 labourers, we accept the unconditional apology tendered by the concerned respondent and dispose of the present proceedings by further directing the concerned respondent herein to act as stated in paragraph hos.4 and 5 of the affidavit-in-reply dated 3/12/2004 in Miscellaneous Civil Application No.3287 of 2014 in Special Civil Application No.15199 of 2013." 2.2 It is the case of the petitioners that after the order was passed by the Division Bench disposing off the aforesaid Miscellaneous Civil Application on 3.12.2014, the services of the petitioner no.2 came to be orally terminated by the respondents from 15.3.2015. The petitioners, therefore, filed the aforesaid Special Civil Application No.17721 of 2015 in which the petitioners prayed for the following reliefs: "22(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the order passed on 15.03.2015 by the respondent no.5 orally terminating the petitioner no.2 from service; (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to declare the action of the respondent authorities in terminating the services of the petitioner no.2 as bad in law, illegal, arbitrary, capricious and violative of petitioner no.2's fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India; (C) Your Lordships may be please to issue a writ of mandamus commanding or directing the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner no.2 in service with continuity in service and grant him all the consequential benefits; (D) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents herein to extend the benefits of the scheme as contained in Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the petitioner no.2 in terms of the judgment dated 09.07.2013 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeals No.5321-5322 of 2013 arising out of Special Leave Petitions(C) no.13619-13620 of 2012; (E) Your Lordships may be pleased to declare that the petitioner no.2 herein is similarly situated to daily-wage employees who were party respondents in Civil Appeals no.5321- 5322 of 2013 arising out of Special Leave Petitions no.13619-13620 of 2012 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and hence the judgment dated 09.07.2013 passed in the said Special Leave Petition is to be applied in the case of the present petitioner no.2; (F) Pending admission and final hearing of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the present respondents to reinstate the petitioner no.2 in service immediately; and (G) Your Lordships be pleased to pass any other appropriate order, as deemed fit, in the interest of justice." 2.3 Learned Single Judge, by an order dated 15.3.2016, allowed the said petition by which oral termination of the petitioner no.2 is held to be illegal and the respondents were directed to reinstate the respondent no.2 with continuity of service and with all consequential benefits but without any back wages. It is also directed to work out the benefits flowing from Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and the said benefit be given to the petitioner no.2 within stipulated time limit. It is also directed to work out the benefits flowing from Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and the said benefit be given to the petitioner no.2 within stipulated time limit. Hence, the original respondents have filed this appeal. 3. Heard learned AGP Mr. Devnani for the appellant and learned senior counsel Mr. Shalin Mehta assisted by learned advocate Ms. Vidhi Bhatt for the respondents. 3.1 Learned AGP mainly contended that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the preliminary objection raised by the original respondents with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition as the petitioners have an alternative efficacious remedy by raising an industrial dispute before the Labour Court. If the petitioner no.2 was aggrieved by the oral termination order passed against him, he could have raised the industrial dispute and reference can be made to the Labour Court for deciding the dispute. However, direct writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before this Court is not maintainable. 3.2 Learned AGP thereafter contended that there are disputes with regard to the number of days on which the petitioner no.2 has worked with the department and the said aspect can be gone into by the Labour Court after evidence is led by the parties. In the writ petition, it is difficult to accept the version of the petitioners that he has completed particular years of service and therefore in absence of any material placed before this Court, learned Single Judge ought not to have allowed the petition and given the direction to reinstate the respondent no.2 with consequential benefits and to work out the benefits flowing from Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and therefore the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Mehta appearing for the original petitioners submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed an order on 9.7.2013 in Civil Appeal No.5321/5322 of 2013 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, held and observed in paragraph 26 as under: "26. 4. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Mehta appearing for the original petitioners submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed an order on 9.7.2013 in Civil Appeal No.5321/5322 of 2013 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, held and observed in paragraph 26 as under: "26. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the finding of Gujarat High Court dated 29th October, 2010 in SCA No.8647/2008 and connected matters and the fact that the said judgment is binding between the parties, we are of the view that the appellants should be directed to grant the benefit of the scheme as contained in the Resolution dated 17th October, 1988 to all the daily wage workers of the Forest and Environment Department working for more than five years, providing them the benefits as per our finding at Paragraph 25 above. The appellants are directed accordingly. The judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 29th October, 2010 as affirmed by the Division Bench by its order dated 28th February, 2012 stands modified to the extent above. The benefit should be granted to the eligible daily wage workers of the Forest and Environment Department working for more than five years including those who are performing work other than building maintenance and repairing but they will be entitled for the consequential benefit w.e.f.29th October, 2010 or subsequent date from which they are so eligible within four months from the date of receipt/production of the copy of this order. The appeals stand disposed of with the aforesaid observation and directions to the appellant-State and its authorities." 4.1 Learned senior counsel Mr. Mehta thereafter submitted that the petitioner and other persons have filed Special Civil Application No.6879 of 2014 in which they prayed that benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 be given to them as directed by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment. Learned Single Judge, by an order dated 7.5.2014, directed the original respondent authorities to examine the cases of the petitioner no.2 and other similarly situated persons individually and if found eligible, it was directed to extend the benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to them. The said exercise was to be completed within a stipulated time limit. Learned Single Judge, by an order dated 7.5.2014, directed the original respondent authorities to examine the cases of the petitioner no.2 and other similarly situated persons individually and if found eligible, it was directed to extend the benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to them. The said exercise was to be completed within a stipulated time limit. However, the respondent-authorities failed to carry out the said exercise and therefore petitioner no.2 and others filed Miscellaneous Civil Application under the Contempt of Courts Act. The said applications were disposed off by an order dated 3.12.2014 on the basis of the affidavit filed by the respondent authorities and in the said order, it is observed that as per the affidavit, necessary steps are already initiated for giving benefits of the scheme contained in Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to all the eligible labourers of the Forest and Environment Department including the applicants and the said benefits will be given with arrears. However, thereafter also, no such benefit was given to the petitioner no.2 and instead of granting such benefits, oral termination order was passed against the petitioner no.2 and therefore petitioners had no option but to file the petition before this Court. 4.2 It is further contended that the learned Single Judge has dealt with the submission of the respondent-authorities with regard to alternative remedy and thereafter considered the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the point of alternative remedy and held that in the facts of the present case, there are good grounds to entertain the petition. Learned advocate has relied upon the decisions referred by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 4.3 Learned counsel thereafter submitted that the respondent-authorities have not placed on record any material by way of affidavit or otherwise pointing out that the petitioner no.2 has not worked for a particular number of days in a year or he has not worked for more than five years or ten years, as the case may be, and therefore petitioner no.2 is not entitled for the benefits flowing from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and therefore it is not open for the appellants-original respondents in the present appeal to take the contention that the petitioner no.2 has not worked for 240 days in a particular year and therefore the said contention may not be entertained by this Court. He, therefore, requested that when no error is committed by the learned Single Judge, the present appeal be dismissed. 5. We have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of learned advocates appearing for the parties. We have also gone through the material produced on record and it has emerged that the petitioners and other similarly situated employees working in the Forest and Environment Department filed Special Civil Application No.6879 of 2014 seeking direction for grant of benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. Learned Single Judge disposed off the said petition by an order dated 7.5.2014 which is produced at page no.109 of the compilation. Learned Single Judge disposed off the said petition by giving following directions in paragraph 9 which reads as under: "9.In view of the above, the following order is passed: The respondents shall examine the cases of petitioners Nos.2 and 3 individually and, if found eligible, shall extend the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to them, as per the directions of the Supreme Court. The needful be done within a period of four months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order." 6. It is also clear from the record that the said direction was not complied with and therefore petitioner no.2 and others filed Miscellaneous Civil Applications under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act and in the said applications, the concerned respondent filed affidavit that the respondent initiated necessary steps for complying with the directions issued by this Court and the benefit of the scheme as contained in the resolution dated 17.10.1988 will be made to all the eligible labourers of Forest and Environment Department by the end of January, 2015. The Division Bench of this Court, therefore, disposed off the Miscellaneous Civil Applications on the basis of the affidavit filed by the concerned respondent to act as stated in the affidavit filed on 3.12.2014 in Miscellaneous Civil Application No.3287 of 2014. 7. Now the grievance of the petitioners is that the services of the petitioners came to be terminated orally on 15.3.2015 and therefore the petitioners filed the captioned petition before the learned Single Judge. It is relevant to note that the original respondent no.4 filed the affidavit-in-reply in the petition. 7. Now the grievance of the petitioners is that the services of the petitioners came to be terminated orally on 15.3.2015 and therefore the petitioners filed the captioned petition before the learned Single Judge. It is relevant to note that the original respondent no.4 filed the affidavit-in-reply in the petition. However, it was not pointed out in the said reply or during the course of the arguments on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner has not completed 240 days in a year and there is no denial to the averments made in the petition that the petitioner no.2 was appointed as a Forest Protector in the Forest and Environment Department of the State of Gujarat on 1.4.2004. The petitioner no.2 has served for a period of more than ten years on daily wage basis in the Forest and Environment Department. The petitioner has produced the chart at Annexure 'A' with the petition at page 31 of the compilation. Thus, the aforesaid averments made in paragraph 4 of the petition are uncontroverted. 8. At this stage, it is also relevant to note that when the petitioner no.2 and other similarly situated daily wagers filed petition being Special Civil Application No.6879 of 2014 for grant of benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, the learned Single Judge disposed off the said petition by giving direction to examine the cases individually and if found eligible, direction was given to extend the benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the petitioner nos.2 and 3 of the said petition. Even thereafter, as observed herein above, when said direction was not complied with, the application under the Contempt of Courts Act came to be filed which came to be disposed off on the basis of the affidavit filed by the concerned respondent by observing that the eligible labourers shall be granted benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. It is the specific case of the petitioners that petitioner no.2 was never informed that he is not eligible for the benefits flowing from Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 nor the benefits under the said resolution was granted to him. If the present case is considered in the aforesaid background, the petitioner has approached before this Court when his services came to be orally terminated without following procedure. It is not in dispute that the respondents have not followed any procedure before orally terminating the services of the petitioner no.2. If the present case is considered in the aforesaid background, the petitioner has approached before this Court when his services came to be orally terminated without following procedure. It is not in dispute that the respondents have not followed any procedure before orally terminating the services of the petitioner no.2. The petitioners have also prayed to grant the benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the petitioner no.2, in view of the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court. Thus, the contention of the learned AGP with regard to the alternative efficacious remedy available to the petitioner is concerned, we are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, learned Single Judge has rightly considered the petition on merits after relying on the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court. We have also gone through the reasoning recorded by the learned Single Judge on merits and we are of the opinion that no error is committed by the learned Single Judge while allowing the petition and giving direction to the respondents-present appellants to reinstate the petitioner no.2 with continuity of service and to grant consequential benefits without any back wages. Similarly, no error is committed by the learned Single Judge by directing the respondents to work out the benefits flowing from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and grant to the petitioner no.2 inasmuch as when the learned single Judge in the order dated 7.5.2014 passed in Special Civil Application No.6879 of 2014 had already given the direction to examine the cases of the concerned petitioners. However, thereafter, it was never informed to the petitioner no.2 that he is not entitled to get the benefit of the said Government Resolution. 9. In view of the above, this appeal is devoid of merits. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. As the appeal is dismissed, civil application is also dismissed.