JUDGMENT : M.R. SHAH, J. 1. All these appeals are admitted on the limited aspect of imposing cost by the learned Single Judge and that too the cost to be borne by the concerned officers personally. As there is a broad consensus between the learned advocates for the respective parties that let the impugned common judgement and order passed by the learned Single Judge imposing cost of Rs.10,000/- qua each concerned workman be quashed and set aside, all these appeals with the consent of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, are taken up for final hearing today. 2. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of Letters Patent Appeals and as such arise out of the impugned common judgement and order passed by the learned Single Judge in respective Special Civil Applications No. 2176 of 2017 to 2180 of 2017, all these appeals are heard, decided and disposed of together by this common judgement and order. 3. The facts leading to the present Letters Patent Appeals in nutshell are as under: 3.1 That all the concerned workmen were serving as daily wagers. All of them were appointed as daily wagers somewhere in the month of January/February 1997. That thereafter, after completion of 5 years of service as daily wagers (continuous service) all the concerned workmen – original petitioners came to be appointed on fixed pay basis. With effect from February 2003, the benefit of Contributory Provident Fund was also granted in their favour. It appears that in July 2006 on the ground of economic measures, the services of the original petitioners came to be terminated. That the original petitioners approached this Court by way of the aforesaid Special Civil Applications and challenged the action whereby their services came to be terminated. That by order dated 10.10.2006, this Court directed the original petitioners to make representations. 3.2 That thereafter the authority rejected the representations vide order dated 02.12.2006. The aforesaid was also the subject matter of the aforesaid Special Civil Applications. That by order dated 10.10.2006, this Court directed the original petitioners to make representations. 3.2 That thereafter the authority rejected the representations vide order dated 02.12.2006. The aforesaid was also the subject matter of the aforesaid Special Civil Applications. At the time of hearing of the aforesaid Special Civil Applications, it was pointed out that similarly situated employees/workmen (two employees) raised industrial dispute before the Industrial Tribunal challenging their termination and the Labour Court vide judgement and award dated 03.03.2014 in Reference No. 143 of 2006 allowed the said reference and ordered reinstatement with full back-wages in one case and in another case with 50% back-wages. It was also brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge that even the respective judgements and award passed by the Labour Court came to be confirmed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 11952 of 2014 and Special Civil Application No. 16279 of 2014. Therefore, it was pointed out that despite the aforesaid facts their representations came to be rejected. 3.3 Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and more particularly the decision of this Court in Special Civil Applications No. 11952 of 2014 and 16279 of 2014 confirming the respective judgements and awards passed by the Labour courts in case of other two similarly situated workmen/employees by the impugned judgement and order, the learned Single Judge has quashed and set aside the respective orders of termination and has directed the Board/Corporation to take necessary action and pass appropriate orders in respect of the respective petitioners on the same lines as directed by the Labour Court in the award dated 03.03.2014 in Reference No. 143 of 2006 which came to be confirmed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 11952 of 2014 and Special Civil Application No. 16279 of 2014. The learned Single Judge has also observed that the original petitioners shall be entitled for the same relief as has been granted by the Labour Court vide award dated 03.03.2014. The learned Single Judge has also observed that the original petitioners shall be entitled for the same relief as has been granted by the Labour Court vide award dated 03.03.2014. While passing the impugned orders/directions and having observed that despite the judgement and award dated 03.03.2014 in Reference No. 143 of 2006 which came to be confirmed by this Court by judgement and order in Special Civil Applications No. 11952 of 2014 and 16279 of 2014 similar treatment was not given to the original petitioners, the learned Single Judge has also imposed the cost of Rs.10,000/- per petitioner on the concerned officer who was competent and authorised to take decision/action but did not and made the petitioners to wait from adjudication of the petitions and the final order in these cases. 4. Having heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and it is not in dispute that the concerned workmen of Reference No. 143 of 2016 were similarly situated to that of the original petitioners and the judgement and award passed by the learned Labour Court dated 03.03.2014 in Reference No. 143 of 2006 ordering reinstatement with back-wages (in one case 100% and in another case 50%) came to be confirmed by way of Special Civil Applications No. 11952 of 2014 and 16279 of 2014 and in fact the same has attained finality, it cannot be said that the learned Single Judge has committed any error in directing the Corporation to take necessary action and pass appropriate orders in respect of the original petitioners on the same lines as directed by the learned Labour Court by the award dated 03.03.2014 in Reference No. 143 of 2006 which came to be confirmed by this Court in Special Civil Applications No. 11952 of 2014 and 16279 of 2014. In fact when those employees/workmen were similarly situated to those of the present petitioners and the award in their favour came to be confirmed by this Court, to avoid any further multiplicity of proceedings in fact the Corporation itself ought to have given the same benefit to the petitioners also. In fact when those employees/workmen were similarly situated to those of the present petitioners and the award in their favour came to be confirmed by this Court, to avoid any further multiplicity of proceedings in fact the Corporation itself ought to have given the same benefit to the petitioners also. If it could have been done in that case, the Corporation itself could have given the same benefit to the petitioners also and as rightly observed by the learned Single Judge the litigation before this Court by way of aforesaid Special Civil Applications No. 2176 of 2007 to 2180 of 2007 could have been avoided. Under the circumstances, the ultimate directions issued by the learned Single Judge contained in para 26 do not call for any interference of this Court in exercise of intra-court appellate jurisdiction. In fact, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge, more particularly, with respect to the directions issued in para 26 of the impugned judgement and order. To the aforesaid extent, the present appeals deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. 5. Now so far as the impugned judgement and order passed by the learned Single Judge imposing cost of Rs.10,000/- per petitioner on the concerned officer is concerned, Shri D.J. Bhatt, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original petitioners has stated at the bar that the original petitioners are not insisting for the cost and therefore, as stated at the bar that he has no objection if the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge imposing cost of Rs.10,000/- on the concerned officer is quashed and set aside. Under the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge insofar as imposing cost of Rs.10,000/- per petitioner on the concerned officer is hereby quashed and set aside with the consent of the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original petitioners. To the aforesaid extent, the present appeals are allowed partly. 6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, present appeals are partly allowed insofar as imposing cost is concerned and the present appeals are dismissed insofar as the direction given by the learned Single Judge in para 26 of the impugned judgement and order is concerned. To the aforesaid extent, the present appeals are allowed partly. 6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, present appeals are partly allowed insofar as imposing cost is concerned and the present appeals are dismissed insofar as the direction given by the learned Single Judge in para 26 of the impugned judgement and order is concerned. Now as the Letters Patent Appeals are dismissed, the appellant – Corporation is hereby directed to comply with the directions issued by the learned Single Judge contained in para 26 of the impugned judgement and order within a period of four weeks from today and whatever benefits which may be available to the original petitioners shall be actually paid to the concerned original petitioners within a period of four weeks thereafter without fail. No order as to costs. In view of dismissal of Letters Patent Appeals, connected Civil Applications stand disposed of.