JUDGMENT Ravindra V. Ghuge, J. - Writ Petition No. 3673/2004 is on the Board for final hearing in this special drive for taking up old final hearing matters. The learned Advocates have fairly stated that other petitions being identically placed, viz. Writ Petition Nos.3409/2003, 4088/2003, 8601/2005, 8602/2005 and 11963/2014, can also be called for and taken up for hearing. Consequentially, the said petitions have been called for and I have heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides at length. 2. All the petitions are admitted except Writ Petition No. 11963/2014. Thus, Rule in Writ Petition No. 11963/2014 and Rule is made returnable forthwith by the consent of the parties. 3. There is no dispute that in all these matters, the Municipal Council, Chalisgaon is aggrieved by the different directions issued by the Industrial Court, Jalgaon vide the impugned judgments by which, Standing Orders 4C and 4D of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 have been made applicable to the Respondents and they have been granted deemed permanency from the date of the filing of these complaints or upon completion of 240 days in continuous service. 4. The learned counsel for the Respondents/Workmen, on the one hand, has strenuously defended the impugned judgments and on the other hand, has tendered the Government Resolution dated 16.05.2005 along with the list of sanctioned posts. The Government Resolution dated 16.05.2005 is marked as "X1". The communication dated 17.10.2015 by the Assistant Commissioner, Backward Cell, Divisional Commissionerate, Nashik Division, Nashik (13 pages) is marked as "X2". The communication dated 21.07.2015 from the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Chalisgaon to the Principal Secretary, Directorate of Municipal Administration, along with the list of proposals and the responses of the said Department dated 11.01.2016 and 08/09.12.2016, are collectively marked as "X3". 5. The issue in these petitions is whether, the Industrial Court could grant permanency to the daily rated employees of the Municipal Council by virtue of completing 240 days in continuous employment in the light of Standing Orders 4C and 4D of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. This issue is no longer resintegra in the light of the judgments of this Court in the matters of Mukhyadhikari, Nagar Parishad, Tuljapur v. Vishal Vijay Amrutrao, 2015(5) Mh.L.J. 75 . (S.J.) , Municipal Council, Tuljapur v. Baban Hussain Dhule, judgment 26.02.2015 in Writ Petition No. 1843/2015. This issue is no longer resintegra in the light of the judgments of this Court in the matters of Mukhyadhikari, Nagar Parishad, Tuljapur v. Vishal Vijay Amrutrao, 2015(5) Mh.L.J. 75 . (S.J.) , Municipal Council, Tuljapur v. Baban Hussain Dhule, judgment 26.02.2015 in Writ Petition No. 1843/2015. (S.J.) and Municipal Council, Tirora and another v. Tulsidas Baliram Bindhade, 2016 (6) Mh.L.J. 867 (D.B.) . It is now settled that such daily rated employees working in the State Instrumentalities like the present workmen, would be entitled for regularization strictly on the basis of the posts available, their interse seniority and the sanction granted by the competent Department of the State Government. 6. It is, therefore, settled that the Municipal Council does not have the authority to create posts. Available work is allocated to the daily rated workers. It is the State Government through it''s Urban Development Department that can create posts subject to rules and such newly created posts or available vacant permanent posts could be filled in by regularizing the daily rated workers strictly as per their seniority. In some Establishments, the Kalelkar Settlement/Bhole Commission''s Recommendations/Shastri Award/Lad Commission''s Recommendations/Vashila Paddhat, are also made applicable. In this backdrop, the Industrial Court cannot declare a ULP against the Municipal Council when it has no authority to create posts or fill in the posts. 7. The learned Advocate for the Municipal Council submits that these workmen are being considered for regularization and some of them have already been granted permanency, which is evident from the documents at X3. 8. Considering the above, these Writ Petitions are partly allowed. The declaration of Unfair Labour Practice made by the Industrial Court in the impugned judgments is quashed and set aside. The directions of the Industrial Court granting permanency upon completion of 240 days or from the date of the filing of the complaints or from the date of the impugned judgments, are set aside and are replaced by the following directions :- a) These Respondents/workmen along with similarly situated daily rated workmen would be considered by the Urban Development Department, State of Maharashtra, Mumbai for grant of regularization strictly in accordance with the Rules applicable, availability of permanent vacant posts and their seniority. (b) Wherever the posts are already vacant, these daily rated workmen would be absorbed as per their seniority and the deemed date of regularization would be the date on which the post became vacant. (c) Needless to state, their present assignments would be taken into account while calculating the arrears to be paid to them, if any, by the Government. (d) If any daily rated workers are left out or their proposals have not been sent, the Petitioner Municipal Council would prepare their proposals and transmit it to the Directorate of Municipal Administration, Maharashtra State, Worli, Mumbai, within a period of TWELVE WEEKS from today and after receipt of such proposals, the Directorate of Municipal Administration shall forward the same, within a period of FOUR WEEKS from their receipt, to the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai, which would consider the said proposals subject to the above contingencies, within a period of SIX MONTHS from today. (e) Needless to state, if the posts are not available, such daily rated workmen would be continued in service depending on the availability of work and would be considered for regularization as and when vacancies arise or new posts are created. This protection would not apply to workers against whom disciplinary proceedings can be initiated. 9. Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.