JUDGMENT : BIREN VAISHNAV, J. 1. Daily wagers working in various capacities under the respondent No.1, Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology, Surat (“SVNIT” for short) approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 17280 of 2012 and Special Civil Application No. 17284 of 2012. Petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 17280 of 2012 had come forth to challenge their terminations, pending conciliation proceedings for regularization. Petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 17284 of 2012 had approached this Court apprehending their termination, pending conciliation proceedings. 1.1 By separate orders dated 28.12.2012, the learned Single Judge dismissed both these petitions on the ground that the respondent “SVNIT” is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 1.2 Aggrieved by the orders of the learned Single Judge, Letters Patent Appeal No. 1664 of 2012 was moved in Special Civil Application No. 17284 of 2012, where the original petitioners had apprehended termination. While entertaining the appeal on the same day i.e. on 28.12.2012, the Division Bench admitted the appeal and granted status quo as on that date regards the existing service conditions. 1.3 Letters Patent Appeal No. 15 of 2013 was moved on 16.01.2013 in Special Civil Application No. 17280 of 2012, Since the petitioners – appellants of that appeal were already terminated, the Appeal was ordered to be placed with Letters Patent Appeal No. 1664 of 2012. 2. Learned advocate Mr. Masoom Shah appears for the appellants in both these appeals. He states that, by virtue of the order of status quo granted in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1664 of 2012, the appellants, who had approached before their services were terminated, are still in service. As far as appellants of Letters Patent Appeal No. 15 of 2013 is concerned, they are not in service as their services were already terminated even before they approached the learned Single Judge. Learned advocates Shri Jayraj Chauhan appearing for Shri M.M. Desai, for the respondent No. 1 S.V.N.I.T., and Shri Parth Divyeshwar appearing for the Union of India and others, respondents Nos. 2 to 4 respectively do not dispute this statement of learned advocate Shri Masoom Shah. Learned advocates Shri Jayraj Chauhan appearing for Shri M.M. Desai, for the respondent No. 1 S.V.N.I.T., and Shri Parth Divyeshwar appearing for the Union of India and others, respondents Nos. 2 to 4 respectively do not dispute this statement of learned advocate Shri Masoom Shah. 2.1 What is therefore undisputed is that during the pendency of both these appeals, whereas appellants of Letters Patent Appeal No. 1664 of 2012 are still working as daily wagers pursuant to the interim relief, the appellants of Letters Patent Appeal No. 15 of 2013 are already out of service. 3. The immediate cause for the appellants – original petitioners to approach this Court by way of the petitions was that their demands for regularization were pending before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) and the Conciliation Officer under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Vadodara, under BRC/ALC/8(21)/2012 and BRC/ALC/8(41)2012. Pending such conciliation proceedings, they apprehended termination and/or were terminated from their services as daily wagers and they had given notices under Section 9A and also filed complaints under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 4. Learned advocates for the respective parties have not disputed that, as far as conciliation proceedings in BRC/ALC/21/2012 are concerned, they have failed and pursuant to a failure report dated 28.06.2012, necessary action for referring the dispute to the competent Industrial/Labour Court is either pending or would have been taken. As far as conciliation proceedings in BRC/ALC/41/2012 is concerned, the same were still pending. 5. When the appeals were taken up for final hearing today i.e. on 15.02.2018, learned advocate Shri Masoom Shah has relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Institute of Technology and others vs. Niraj Kumar Singh, reported in (2007)2SCC 481, particularly paragraph 13 thereof to support his contention that, S.V.N.I.T, admittedly is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 6. 6. However, the question of S.V.N.I.T being a State, within the meaning of Article 12, need not be gone into as a joint request is made by all the learned advocates for the respective parties and there is an agreement and a consensus between them that, since, in view of the pendency of proceedings before the Industrial forum/conciliation proceedings, appellants of Letters Patent Appeal No. 1664 of 2012, who are continued in service pursuant to the interim relief granted earlier, be so continued in service, till the final outcome of the proceedings pending before the competent Industrial/Labour Court. 7. As far as Letters Patent Appeal No. 15 of 2013 is concerned, since the appellants are already out of service as daily-wagers, the legality and validity of termination be decided by the competent Industrial/Labour Court where their question of regularization and/or breach of Section 33 proceedings are pending. 8. In view of the agreement arrived at by the learned advocates for the respective parties that the respective Letters Patent Appeals be disposed of on a consensus that the appellants of Letters Patent Appeal No. 1664 of 2012 be continued as daily wagers, pending the final adjudication of the dispute and the appellants of Letters Patent Appeal No. 15 of 2013, who are already out of service, be relegated to the forum where their disputes for regularization/and complaints under Section 33 are pending, the following order, on an agreement is passed: (A) The appellants of Letters Patent Appeal No. 1664 of 2012, who are continued in service as daily wagers, pursuant to the interim order dated 28.12.2012 passed in such appeal are directed to be continued in service on the same terms till the final outcome of the conciliation proceedings/pending reference/Section 33 proceedings and/or proceedings for regularization in BRC/ALC/21/2012 and BRC/ALC/41/2012. (B) The appellants of Letters Patent Appeal No. 15 of 2013 who are already out of service are relegated to sustain/challenge their termination subject to outcome of the proceedings in BRC/ALC/21/2012 and BRC/ALC/41/2012 and subsequent proceedings pursuant to such conciliation proceedings. (C) Civil Application No. 548 of 2012 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1664 of 2012 is disposed of with no orders. With these directions to which the learned advocates to the respective parties have agreed to, the Appeals stand disposed of.