JUDGMENT : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. Employer - Municipal Council and its President are before this Court assailing the judgment dated 03.07.2007 delivered by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2891 of 1995. That Writ Petition was filed by 17 employees of Municipal Corporation against the judgment dated 20.4.1992 (20.04.1990). This judgment is delivered by the Member, Industrial Court in ULP Complaint No. 82 to 98 of 1987. 2. Member, Industrial Court did not grant any declaration or relief under Item 9 of Schedule 4 of The Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices (M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P.) Act, 1971, and on uniform basis extended the benefit of Item 6 of Schedule 4. Learned Member also observed that the complainants before him were entitled to equal facilities and accordingly without directing absorption in permanent cadre, a direction was given to employer to extend to them the wages at par with permanent employees from date of complaint i.e. from 10.3.1987. 3. Complainants were claiming benefit of Award dated 30.7.1975 delivered by Industrial Court, Nagpur and hence they approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 2891 of 1995. Learned Single Judge on 3.7.2007 has found that benefit of earlier Award dated 30.7.1975 could not have been denied to complainants. Hence, a direction has been issued to employer to extend the benefit of permanency to all complainants from the date they completed two years of continuous service. Only continuity has been ordered from said date without any arrears. 4. Advocate Shri. Dhatrak points out that some complainants had already expired during pendency of petition before learned Single Judge and hence it was necessary to bring their legal heirs on record. Those legal heirs were not brought on record and hence by order dated 25.11.2008, this Court has expressly mentioned that Writ Petition had abated in so far as petitioner no. 5, 9, 12, 13 and 16 are concerned. He points out that this order has attend finality. 5. He adds that learned Member of Industrial Court did not grant permanency on 20.4.1992 and the Award of which support is taken by employees namely the Award of Industrial Court dated 30.7.1975, also did not and does not grant such permanency. He submits that there is difference between regularisation and grant of permanency. 5. He adds that learned Member of Industrial Court did not grant permanency on 20.4.1992 and the Award of which support is taken by employees namely the Award of Industrial Court dated 30.7.1975, also did not and does not grant such permanency. He submits that there is difference between regularisation and grant of permanency. Inviting attention to Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmachari Sanghatna, (2009) 8 SCC 556 he contend that unless and until sanctioned vacant posts are demonstrated, no direction to absorption can be given. He submits that the appellant Municipal Council has no objection if the relief as given by Industrial Court on 20.4.1992/1990 is maintained as it is. 6. Nobody appears for respondents (employees), though served. 7. Learned AGP has appeared for respondent No. 18-Member, Industrial Court. 8. Perusal of judgment delivered by Industrial Court reveals that employer has to extend equal facilities to complainants before it and complainants need to be absorbed in permanent cadre. Final, direction issued by Industrial Court is consistent with these observations. The equal benefit are to be extended from date of filing complaint i.e. from 10.3.1987. 9. Learned Industrial Court has declined to grant benefit of 1975 Award to 3 complainants named before it as it found that they did not seek any benefit for more than 12 years. It therefore, refused to grant any declaration under Item 9 in their favour. 10. Once there was an Award, it was necessary for employer to extend its benefit to everybody without asking. Omission to implement Award is recognised as a continuous cause. However, in present facts, employer has also pointed out that employees had joined employment later and therefore, Award did not regulate their services. The learned Single Judge has not expressly found anything wrong with this defence. On the contrary, accepting statement that complainant employees would forego entire arrears, benefit of Award has been extended. The learned Single Judge has directed the employer to extend benefit of permanency to all the complainants from the date they completed two years of continuous service. It is also observed that Award provides that daily rated employees completing two years of continuous service satisfactorily should be considered for being made permanent by Municipal Council. 11. Perusal of that Award reveals that in para no. It is also observed that Award provides that daily rated employees completing two years of continuous service satisfactorily should be considered for being made permanent by Municipal Council. 11. Perusal of that Award reveals that in para no. 21, Industrial Court has directed Municipal Council to apply Bombay Civil Services Rules to the employees in the matter of leave. It further ordered that all daily rated employees who put in two years continuous and satisfactory service, should be considered for being made permanent. It has further directed that Award be given effect from 5.2.1972 i.e. the date on which reference of various demand was made to it. 12. Thus, paragraph no. 21 of the Award made by Industrial Court in 1975 does not show grant of automatic permanency. Only those who have put in two years of service that too satisfactorily and continuously needed to be considered for making permanent. As pointed out by Advocate Shri. Dhatrak granting permanency depends upon availability of sanctioned vacant post. This position is clearly overlooked by the learned Single Judge on 3.7.2007. The direction issued in writ petition is to confer benefits of permanency on all complainants without any verification. 13. In this situation, we quash and set aside the order date 3.7.2007 and dismiss Writ Petition No. 2891 of 1995. 14. LPA is accordingly allowed. 15. No cost. Appeal allowed.