JUDGMENT Ravindra V. Ghuge, J. (Oral) - The petitioner/State of Maharashtra, in all these identical matters, is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 27.11.2002, by which, the different (ULP) Complaints filed by the respondent/employees, have been partly allowed and they have been granted deemed permanency after completion of 240 days as Class III/IV employees and the salary payable to such Class III/IV employees at par with the permanent employees. ULP declaration under items 6 and 9 has also been made by the Industrial Court. 2. Despite service of court notice, none has caused an appearance on behalf of the respondents. 3. I have heard the learned AGP on behalf of the petitioner/State and have gone through the petition paper book and the impugned judgment as well as the judgment in the Review Application, which has been rejected. 4. The observations of the Industrial Court in paragraph No. 11 clearly indicate that it concluded that there are no vacant posts and hence, the complainants cannot be granted permanency in the absence of permanent vacant posts. However, the Industrial Court declared that the petitioner was guilty of unfair labour practices by continuing the complainants as daily wagers for years together. 5. It requires no debate that when a limb of the Government or a particular department of the Government does not have the authority of creating posts, such a department cannot be held guilty of ULP for continuing the daily wagers as temporary. In the absence of posts, such a department cannot grant permanency and failure to do so, as there are no vacant posts, the Industrial Court would not be justified in declaring that such a department is guilty of unfair labour practices. 6. Paragraph 11 of the impugned order also indicates that the Industrial Court has granted deemed permanency after completion of 240 days in continuous service, probably by keeping in mind Standing Order 4C of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. The learned Division Bench of this Court at Nagpur in the matter of Municipal Council, Tirora and Another v. Tulsidas Baliram Bindhade [2016 (6) Mh. L.J. 867] , has concluded that the principle of deemed permanency under Standing Order 4C and 4D would not be applicable to the State instrumentalities. 7. In the cases of Mukhyadhikari, Nagar Parishad, Tuljapur v. Vishal Vijay Amrutrao and Others, [2015 (5) Mh. L.J. 867] , has concluded that the principle of deemed permanency under Standing Order 4C and 4D would not be applicable to the State instrumentalities. 7. In the cases of Mukhyadhikari, Nagar Parishad, Tuljapur v. Vishal Vijay Amrutrao and Others, [2015 (5) Mh. L.J. 75] and Municipal Council, Tuljapur v. Baban Hussain Dhale in WP No. 1843 of 2015 , this Court has taken a view that there cannot be a declaration of ULP and there cannot be a direction of permanency. The only relief that can be granted in such circumstances would be that the services of such daily wagers could be protected if they are in continuous employment and their proposals would be forwarded for considering them for regularization based on their seniority. Apparently, the Industrial Court has ignored these aspects while delivering the impugned common judgment. 8. Considering the above, these petitions are partly allowed. The directions set out in Clause 2 and 3 of the operative part of the order are quashed and set aside. The directions in Clauses 4 and 5 are replaced with the following directions: (A) The petitioner/department would prepare a common proposal of all these respondents and similarly situated daily wagers, notwithstanding that they are not before this Court, within a period of 12 weeks from today and forward the said proposal to the Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Dairy Department, State of Maharashtra. (B) After receiving such proposals of all similarly situated daily wagers, the concerned department would take into account the available vacant posts and would grant permanency to such daily wagers strictly on the basis of their seniority and the number of days that they have worked in continuous service. Accordingly, the deemed date of permanency would be the date on which the said permanent post fell vacant. (C) In the event of shortfall in the number of posts available, the concerned department would consider the remaining daily wagers for regularization as and when such posts are created or fall vacant and grant deemed dates accordingly. (D) Such daily wagers would not be terminated merely because they are temporary and their proposals are pending. This protection would not be applicable to cases of disciplinary action and such daily wagers who are voluntarily not reporting for duties. (D) Such daily wagers would not be terminated merely because they are temporary and their proposals are pending. This protection would not be applicable to cases of disciplinary action and such daily wagers who are voluntarily not reporting for duties. (E) In so far as their monthly payments are concerned, such daily wagers would be treated at par with those regular employees who are performing identical nature of duties. (F) In the event of any candidate passing away or attaining the age of retirement, their benefits would be computed from the date on which they are entitled for such regularization and benefits would be extended to them/the L.Rs. accordingly. 9. Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.