JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Rawal, learned advocate for the petitioner Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation ('Corporation' for short). The respondent has not entered appearance. 2. In present petition the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that:- “8(B) be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction by quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment/order/award dated 13.5.2014 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jamnagar in Reference (I.T.) No. 483 of 2012.” 3. The petitioner corporation is aggrieved by award dated 13.5.2014 whereby the learned Tribunal directed the petitioner to grant benefit of time scale to the claimant (concerned workman represented by respondent No.1 union) from the date when the concerned person completed service of 180 days. 4. Factual backdrop involved in present petition is in narrow compass. 4.1 It is not in dispute that the original claimant is employee of the petitioner corporation. 4.2 It is also not in dispute that the corporation has entered into an agreement/settlement with various unions who represent the workmen employed by the corporation. 4.3 It is also not in dispute that one of the clauses under the settlement (i.e. clause no. 20 of the settlement) provide for benefits of regular pay scale to the workmen who are not on regular establishment of the corporation. 4.4 The said benefit is available and can be granted to the employee who fulfill and comply the eligibility condition prescribed under the settlement. 4.5 It has also emerged from the record that when the concerned workman became eligible for said benefit in accordance with the condition prescribed under clause 20 of the settlement, the corporation granted said benefit to the said employee. 4.6 However after some time the claimant raised demand/dispute that the corporation should have granted said benefit from the date on which he completed 180 days of service. 4.7 The corporation would, in counter, submit that the said benefit is available on compliance of all conditions under clause 20 i.e. other conditions which are over and above the first condition (viz. completion of service of 180 days) and that therefore so long as the concerned claimant does not fulfill other requirements, he cannot be considered eligible for said benefit. 4.8 The said refusal by the corporation gave rise to industrial dispute which culminated into several reference cases. completion of service of 180 days) and that therefore so long as the concerned claimant does not fulfill other requirements, he cannot be considered eligible for said benefit. 4.8 The said refusal by the corporation gave rise to industrial dispute which culminated into several reference cases. 4.9 In all such reference cases tribunal passed directions of almost similar nature and directed the corporation to grant said benefits to the employee from the date when the concerned completed service of 180 days. 5. Before the learned tribunal the corporation had opposed the claim, in reference cases on various grounds including the ground of delay inasmuch as the claim was raised after delay of more than 10 to 15 years and also on the ground that clause 20 of the settlement prescribed certain other conditions and simultaneous compliance of the said condition is mandatory and the benefit of pay scale would become available only on simultaneous compliance of all conditions and not on compliance of only one (out of various conditions) condition prescribed by virtue of clause 20 of the settlement. 6. According to the corporation the learned tribunal rejected the said two objections by the corporation and rendered awards in reference cases with similar directions i.e. that the corporation should grant the benefit on completion of 180 days of service by the claimant, however learned tribunal did not give any importance to other conditions prescribed under clause 20. 7. Such awards passed by the learned labour Court gave rise to several petitions. 7.1 The said petitions including Special Civil Application No.11717 of 2014 with Special Civil Application No. 5166 of 2014 with Special Civil Application No. 2262 of 2013 etc. came to be decided by the Court vide decision dated 18.9.2014. 7.2 The said decision culminated into several Letters Patent Appeals viz. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1185 of 2014, Letters Patent Appeal No. 1199 of 2014, Letters Patent Appeal No. 1200 of 2014 etc. 7.3 The said Letters Patent Appeals came to be decided vide order dated 11.11.2014. By the said decision the Division Bench rejected the appeals and the decision dated 18.9.2014 came to be confirmed. 7.4 It appears that subsequently another group of petitions i.e. Special Civil Application No. 10908 of 2014, Special Civil Application No. 10977 of 2014, Special Civil Application No. 10978 of 2014 also came to be decided on similar line. 8. By the said decision the Division Bench rejected the appeals and the decision dated 18.9.2014 came to be confirmed. 7.4 It appears that subsequently another group of petitions i.e. Special Civil Application No. 10908 of 2014, Special Civil Application No. 10977 of 2014, Special Civil Application No. 10978 of 2014 also came to be decided on similar line. 8. To put in nut-shell the details with regard to the said petitions and Letters Patent Appeals, suffice it to say that Hon'ble Division Bench confirmed the decision that the awards which ignore other conditions prescribed by clause 20 of the settlement are not sustainable and the said awards deserve to be set aside and that the benefits would be available to the employee only on compliance of all conditions prescribed by virtue of clause 20 of the settlement. 9. At this stage it would be relevant to take into account condition prescribed by clause 20. 10. When clause 20 of the settlement on strength of which the claimant raised dispute is taken into account it emerges that the said clause postulates compliance of three conditions (1) completion of service for minimum 180 days (2) availability of clear vacancy on permanent post (3) inter se seniority of the daily wager. 10.1 Simultaneous compliance of the said three conditions is sine qua non according to clause 20 of the settlement. 10.2 In view of said condition even after the person fulfills the condition related to minimum service viz. continuous service for 180 days, the benefit would flow only when there is vacancy on existing post and the turn of the employee arrive on the basis of inter se seniority. 11. Meaning thereby even if the first two conditions are complied then also the person who is lower in the seniority list would not become eligible for the benefit, until his turn, as per inter se seniority, arrives. 12. Unfortunately while passing various awards, learned tribunal, overlooked said two conditions and directed the corporation to grant the benefit w.e.f. the date when the employee completed service of 180 days and to ignore as to whether on the said date actual vacancy existed or not and whether turn of the concerned persons, on the basis of inter se seniority, had arrived or not. 12.1 The Court found said defect in the awards therefore learned Single Judge set aside the awards. 12.1 The Court found said defect in the awards therefore learned Single Judge set aside the awards. The said decision is confirmed by division bench. 13. At this stage it is necessary to take note of the fact that learned Division Bench has clarified one aspect viz. that the cases in which the corporation has already granted pay scale, those cases shall not be disturbed. 14. Now, when the award impugned in present petition is taken into account, it emerges that in impugned award also, learned Tribunal has ignored said two conditions and the learned Tribunal took into account only one condition and only on that basis directed the petitioner corporation to grant benefit of pay scale to concerned claimants from the date when the employees completed service of 180 days. Differently put, in present case also, the learned Tribunal has directed the corporation to ignore other two conditions which form part of Clause 20 of the settlement. 15. In this view of the matter, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 15.1 The grievance of the corporation against such award is already examined by this Court in above mentioned decisions and the corporation's objection against the impugned direction is accepted and allowed by Divisional Bench of this Court. 15.2 Therefore, neither need nor justification to enter into detailed and elaborate discussion with regard to petitioner's grievance against the direction in the award impugned in present petition. 15.3 Suffice it to say that in present case also, learned Tribunal has committed similar error and ignored vital two conditions of clause 20 of the settlement. 15.4 Not only this, learned Tribunal has also directed the corporation to ignore said conditions and to grant the benefit to the employees from the date when he completed 180 days of service without having regard to vacancy and inter se seniority. 15.5 Therefore, in light of the decision by Division Bench in above mentioned Letters Patent Appeals, the petition deserves to be allowed. 16. Consequently, following order is passed:- 17. The impugned award dated 13.5.2014 in Reference (IT) No.483 of 2012 is hereby set aside, however, with clarification that the benefit, if already granted by the corporation, shall not be disturbed. The petition is allowed in terms of and in light of the decision dated 4.7.2017 in Letters Patent Appeal No.1185 of 2014 and cognate appeals. Present petition accordingly stands disposed of. The petition is allowed in terms of and in light of the decision dated 4.7.2017 in Letters Patent Appeal No.1185 of 2014 and cognate appeals. Present petition accordingly stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Orders accordingly.