JUDGMENT : M.R SHAH, J. 1. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of Letters Patent Appeals, they are being decided and disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 20th August 2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in respective Special Civil Applications No. 10908 of 2014 and other allied writ petitions, by which the learned Single Judge has allowed the said Special Civil Applications and thereby quashed and set-aside the respective Awards passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot, the concerned employees-original respondents have preferred the present Letters Patent Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 3. For the sake of convenience, facts mentioned in Special Civil Application No. 10908 of 2014 [LPA No. 1185 of 2014] are narrated hereunder: 3.1 That the concerned employee-original respondent-appellant was serving as a Badli Driver since 20th May 1998. That, he was offered work by the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation as and when regular Drivers were not available, or as a reliever, etc. That thereafter, he was ultimately appointed as a regular daily wage Driver in the year 2008, and as per the policy of the Corporation, he was taken on regular establishment in the pay scale with effect from 30th June 2008. That thereafter, in the year 2012, the concerned employee/workman, approached the Industrial Tribunal by raising an industrial dispute asserting that the action of GSRTC of taking him in employment on the pay-scale with effect from 30th June 2008 was illegal and that he ought to have been granted regular pay-scale in the year 1998 itself ie., on completion of 180 days. The dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal at Rajkot. Before the learned Tribunal, the worker's union relied upon the settlement entered into by and between the Workers' Union and GSRTC; more particularly, Clause-20 of the said settlement by which it was agreed that on completion of 180/240 days, the concerned employee/workman on daily wage, or on temporary basis would be placed in the regular time-scale. The Reference was resisted by the management GSRTC by submitting that the dispute has been raised after a period of approximately 14 years. The Reference was resisted by the management GSRTC by submitting that the dispute has been raised after a period of approximately 14 years. On merits, it was submitted that as the conditions provided under Clause 20 of the Settlement are not at is fied, merely on completion of 180/240 days; as the case may be, the concerned employee is not entitled to be put to the regular time-scale. That, vide impugned judgment and award, the learned Industrial Tribunal has allowed the said Reference and has directed the management of GSRTC to put the employee in the regular time-scale from 1998 ie., the day on which he has completed 180/240 days and has also directed the Management to pay arrears which would be for the period between 1998 to 2008. 4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot in Reference [IT] No. 81 of 2012 dated 20th December 2013, the management of GSRTC has preferred Special Civil Application No. 10908 of 2014 before this Court and by the impugned judgment and order dated 20th August 2014, the learned Single Judge has allowed the said writ petition and thereby quashed and set-aside the Award passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot by observing that the learned Tribunal has misinterpreted Clause 20 of the Settlement and has erred in directing the management of GSRTC to put the concerned workmen/employee in regular time-scale solely on completion of 180 days. That, while passing the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge has relied upon a decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 10974 of 1993 dated 20th September 2004 which has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 1544 of 2005 vide Order dated 13th December 2005, by which on the similar set of facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge has set-aside the order passed by the learned Tribunal. 4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 10908 of 2014, the workman-original respondent has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Similar orders are passed by the learned Single Judge in other writ petitions, which are subject matter of other Appeals. 5. 4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 10908 of 2014, the workman-original respondent has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Similar orders are passed by the learned Single Judge in other writ petitions, which are subject matter of other Appeals. 5. Shri Krutarth K. Pandy, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the concerned workmen in some of the Letters Patent Appeals and Shri P.P Majmudar has appeared on behalf of some of the workmen in remaining Appeals. Ms. Vishwa Patel for Shri Hardik C Raval, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the management of GSRTC. 6. Learned advocates appearing on behalf of the concerned workmen and appellants have vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge has materially erred in allowing the Special Civil Applications preferred by the Corporation and in quashing and setting aside the orders passed by the learned Tribunal. 7. It is vehemently submitted by Shri Pandya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that the learned Single Judge has not properly appreciated the fact that as such, the concerned workmen had completed 180 days' of service in the year 1998 and they were continued on the same post, and therefore, the posts were available and they were also in the select list, and there fore, all the conditions of Clause 20 of the Settlement are satisfied. 8. It is submitted that therefore, the learned Single Judge has materially erred in quashing and setting aside the Award passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal. 9. It is further submitted by Shri KK Pandya, learned appearing on behalf of the respective appellants that in the facts and circumstances of the case, delay in raising the dispute shall not come in the way of the concerned workmen, as there was a continuous cause of action as the grant of time-scale could have a direct bearing on the subsequent increments. 7.4 It is further submitted by Shri KK Pandya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respective appellants that the learned Single Judge has materially erred in relying upon decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court rendered in SCA No. 10974 of 1993 which has been confirmed by the Division Bench in LPA No. 1544 of 2005. 7.4 It is further submitted by Shri KK Pandya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respective appellants that the learned Single Judge has materially erred in relying upon decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court rendered in SCA No. 10974 of 1993 which has been confirmed by the Division Bench in LPA No. 1544 of 2005. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, decision of the learned Single Judge rendered in SCA No. 10974 of 1993 shall not be applicable. It is submitted that in the case before the learned Single Judge in SCA No. 10974 of 1993, while allowing the Reference, the learned Tribunal directed to grant supernumerary posts which was found objectionable by the learned Single Judge. It is submitted that therefore, the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. 10. Learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective appellants have relied upon decision of the learned Single Judge rendered in the case of GSRTC v. Bharatkumar Jashwantlal Rao [Special Civil Application No. 393 of 2000] by which the learned Single Judge in the similar facts and circumstances of the case confirmed the award passed by the learned Tribunal granting similar benefit to some 32 such reliever-Watchmen. Making the above submissions, it is requested to allow the present Appeals. 11. All these Letters patent Appeals are vehemently opposed by Ms. Vishwa Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation. 12. It is vehemently submitted by Ms. Patel, learned advocate appearing for the Corporation that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in allowing the writ petitions and in quashing and setting aside the Award declared by the Tribunal. 12. It is vehemently submitted by Ms. Patel, learned advocate appearing for the Corporation that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in allowing the writ petitions and in quashing and setting aside the Award declared by the Tribunal. It is submitted that as it was found that the learned Industrial Tribunal had directed to grant benefit of time-scale w.e.f 1998 ie., the day on which the concerned workmen completed 180 days' service, solely on the ground that the concerned workmen had completed 180 days from that day ie., on completion of 180 days, they are required to be put in the regular time-scale, the learned Single Judge has rightly interfered with the Award declared by the learned Tribunal by observing that for attracting and invoking the said clause and/or while applying clause 20 of the Settlement, three conditions are required to be satisfied viz [i] Reference should have been moved by concerned workmen who have put in more than 180 days' service; [ii] that the workmen should have been on the select list, and [iii] that he should have been assigned the work against regular/sanctioned post. It is submitted that the learned Industrial Tribunal passed the Award and granted benefit of regular time-scale solely on the ground that the concerned workmen had completed 180 days and had not considered at all the other conditions, the learned Single Judge has rightly quashed and set-aside the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal. 9.2 It is further submitted by Ms. Patel, learned advocate for the Corporation that as such the issue involved in the present Appeals is squarely covered by the following decisions of the learned Single Judge as well as Division Bench, by which, in the similar set of facts and circumstances of the case and with respect to the similar awards passed by the Industrial Tribunal, which was passed on the very reasonings, the learned Single Judge has seaside the orders, which have been confirmed by the Division Bench. These are: 13. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. S.T Workers' Union; [SCA No. 10974 of 1993 with allied writ petitions]; 14. S.T Workers' Union v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [LPA No. 1544 of 2005 in SCA No. 10976/1993]; 15. These are: 13. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. S.T Workers' Union; [SCA No. 10974 of 1993 with allied writ petitions]; 14. S.T Workers' Union v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [LPA No. 1544 of 2005 in SCA No. 10976/1993]; 15. Divisional Controller - GSRTC v. Maheshbhai Navalshanker Pandya [SCA No. 11717 of 2014 & allied cognate matters]; 16. Vikramsinh Chaganbhai Zala v. Managing Director-GSRTC [SCA No. 16813/2013]; 17. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Paresh Harilal Mandlik, [SCA No. 12817 of 2014]’ 18. Paresh Harilal Mandlik v. Divisional Controller-GSRTC [LPA No. 322 of 2016 and allied Appeals]; 19. Divisional Controller-GSRTC v. Paresh Prabhudasbhai Lashkari [SCA No. 1047 of 2014]; 20. Paresh Prabhudasbhai Lashkari v. Divisional Controller-GSRTC [LPA No. 136 of 2016] 21. Making the above submissions and relying upon the above decisions, it is requested to dismissed the present Appeals. 22. Heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. 23. At the outset, it is required to be noted that after the concerned workmen were put in regular time-scale somewhere in the year 2008, thereafter after a period of 14 years from the date of cause of action ie., in the year 1998, the concerned workmen raised industrial dispute in the year 2012 by making a grievance that they ought to have been put in regular time-scale in the year 1998 on their completing 180 days' of service. That, in support of their above claim, they had relied upon Clause 20 of the Settlement and despite the fact that while granting benefit of regular time-scale, as per Clause 20, three conditions are required to be fulfilled, the learned Tribunal granted benefit of regular time-scale on the ground that as the concerned workmen completed 180 days' of service, from that day, they are entitled to be put into regular time-scale. However, it is required to be noted that the learned Tribunal considered as if there was only one stipulation in the said Settlement that as and when concerned workman completes 180 days' service as a Daily Wager, he is entitled to claim regular time-scale. The Tribunal has recorded that upon completion of 180 days-counting from the date of initial engagement as a daily wager, he is entitled to get such benefit. However, the learned Tribunal ignored and had not considered other two conditions/stipulations. The Tribunal has recorded that upon completion of 180 days-counting from the date of initial engagement as a daily wager, he is entitled to get such benefit. However, the learned Tribunal ignored and had not considered other two conditions/stipulations. As per Clause 20 of the Settlement, entered into by and between GSRTC and the Workmen's Union, upon which reliance was placed by the concerned workmen for the benefit of regular time-scale, it provides that the case of a daily wager shall be considered for being taken on regular time-scale, after completion of 180 days as a daily wager; keeping in view the availability of the concerned vacant posts of the respective cadres. There is a further stipulation that the said consideration would be on the basis of inter se seniority of such daily wagers. Under the circumstances, when the learned Industrial Tribunal directed the management to grant regular time scale to the concerned workmen solely on fulfillment of one of the conditions ie., completion of 180 days' service and it was found that the other two conditions/stipulations are not at all considered and/or fulfilled, thereafter when the learned Single Judge has allowed the said Special Civil Applications and has quashed and set-aside the respective Awards, it cannot be said that the learned Single Judge has committed an error of law, nor the order passed by the learned Single Judge can be said to be contrary to Clause 20 of the Settlement, which calls for interference by this Court in exercise of intra-court appellate jurisdiction. As such, the issue involved in the present Appeals is squarely covered against the concerned workmen and in favour of the Management, in light of afore stated decision of learned Single Judge rendered in SCA No. 12817/2014 & 13641/2016 which has been confirmed by the Division Bench in respective Letters Patent Appeals. In all these aforesaid matters, the learned Single Judge has set-aside similar Awards passed by the Industrial Tribunal granting benefit of regular time scale solely on completion of 180 days' by the concerned workmen, when other conditions were ignored and/or not satisfied. Under the circumstances, as such, the issue involved in the present Appeals is no more res integra. 12. In all these aforesaid matters, the learned Single Judge has set-aside similar Awards passed by the Industrial Tribunal granting benefit of regular time scale solely on completion of 180 days' by the concerned workmen, when other conditions were ignored and/or not satisfied. Under the circumstances, as such, the issue involved in the present Appeals is no more res integra. 12. Now so far as reliance placed upon decision of learned Single Judge in SCA No. 393 of 2000 by Shri PP Majmudar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of some of the workmen is concerned, at the outset, it is required to be noted that in the said case, even the learned Single Judge concerned on considering the reasonings given; more particularly in para 5 thereof, we are of the opinion that in the said decision, the learned Single Judge has not properly interpreted stipulations mentioned in Clause 20 of the Settlement. In any case, we are not in agreement with the reasonings given by the learned Single Judge in para-5 of the said decision. Even otherwise, in light of the decision rendered by Division Bench in LPAs referred to hereinabove, the decision of Division Bench is binding, rather than the decision of learned Single Judge. 13. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, and considering the decision of learned Single Judge in respective SCAs and the decision of Division Bench in LPA Nos. 136 of 2016 and 322 of 2016, and considering the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal which have now been set aside by the learned Single Judge and the reasonings given by the learned Single Judge by passing the impugned orders, we are of the opinion that as out of three stipulations, the learned Tribunal granted benefit of time scale on fulfillment of only one stipulation, and other two stipulations were ignored, it cannot be said that the learned Single Judge has committed any error in quashing the respective Awards granting benefit of regular time scale to the concerned workmen on merely completion of 180 days' service. 13.1 Even otherwise, the question is required to be considered from another angle also. It is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that the concerned workmen claimed benefit of regular time scale w.e.f 1998. 13.1 Even otherwise, the question is required to be considered from another angle also. It is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that the concerned workmen claimed benefit of regular time scale w.e.f 1998. However, till they raised an industrial dispute in the year 2012, no grievance was made at all by them. After a period of 14 years, for the first time, while raising demand, they raised a dispute and/or made grievance that they ought to have been granted regular time-scale w.e.f 1998. It is required to be noted that in the meantime, the respective workmen have been put in regular time-scale in the year 2008. The learned Tribunal passed an Award even granting regular time scale w.e.f 1998 with arrears by which there would be heavy financial burden on the management and therefore, by considering the issue involved in the present Appeals, the aforesaid aspect is also required to be confirmed. 24. In any case, for the reasons stated above, it cannot be said that the learned Single Judge has committed any error in quashing and setting aside the respective Award by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 25. In view of the above and for the reasons afore stated, all these Letters Patent Appeals fail and the same deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed.