ORDER : ANANT S. DAVE, J. 1. In this appeal under clause-15 of Letters Patent, challenge is to oral judgment dated 21.8.2018 rendered by learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 21692 of 2016, which petition was filed by the appellant municipality under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award dated 30th August, 2016 passed by learned Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) No. 1 of 2013, whereby learned Tribunal directed the municipality to regularize the services of about 47 employees (Safai Karmachari), to confer status of permanent employees w.e.f. 14.12.2011 and to pay regular salary in regular pay scale with effect from the date of the award and to consider the interregnum as notional. 2. Before the learned single Judge, manifold contentions were raised by the municipality, namely, about demand of claim of the workmen on the ground that their appointments were not regular and there were no sanctioned posts available; that there were no vacancies on the establishment; that the workmen were appointed on daily wage, purely on ad hoc basis and could not claim entitlement for regularization of service. It was further contended that the learned Tribunal erred in not appreciating the material on record and therefore, arrived at incorrect finding by drawing conclusion adverse to the interest of the municipality. At the same time, contention on behalf of the union representing the employees was accepted that 49 vacancies were of permanent nature and were existing on the establishment, which were subsequently sanctioned by the competent authority and continuous and uninterrupted service of more than 16 years of each workman resulted into unjust and arbitrary termination in the matter of public employment. On careful perusal of record of the case before the learned Tribunal and findings, reasonings and conclusions drawn by learned Tribunal, in exercise of power under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, learned single Judge categorically noted emergence of undisputed facts in favour of employees and finally upholding the award passed by the learned Tribunal, rejected the writ petition. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment, present appeal is filed. 4. Learned advocate for appellant would contend that appointments of workmen/employees were not in accordance with law and not made by following due procedure of recruitment; that municipality has no power under the Gujarat Municipalities Act either to create any post or to fill up vacancies. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment, present appeal is filed. 4. Learned advocate for appellant would contend that appointments of workmen/employees were not in accordance with law and not made by following due procedure of recruitment; that municipality has no power under the Gujarat Municipalities Act either to create any post or to fill up vacancies. In the absence of sanctioned vacant posts, appointments could not have been made, much less, no direction could have been issued for treating daily rated/ad-hoc employees as regular and to confer upon them all benefits including pay scale of regular employees. Even for municipality, it is difficult to maintain its day to day affairs due to its weak financial position and therefore, it is unable to carry out directions of the learned Industrial Tribunal so confirmed by learned single Judge and merely because employees have served for more than 10 to 15 years, cannot be a ground for ordering permanency of service conditions of workmen. It is submitted that error has crept in the judgment under challenge in not considering that Resolution No.23 dated 13.4.2017 and Resolution No.125 dated 17.1.2008 for filling up regular posts and interview for regularization of the posts of daily wagers were passed without following due process of interview and sanction of the competent authority as required under the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963. Further, other developments took place and considering the resolutions of the year 2004 and the rules for recruitment of employees of Class-IV prevailing at relevant time, it would reveal that regularization of daily wagers was not warranted. Our attention is also drawn to para-14 of the order passed by learned single Judge and it is submitted that impugned judgment of the learned single Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside by allowing the appeal. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made herein above vis-a-vis judgment rendered by learned single Judge in exercise of power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, negativing and rejecting the writ-petition filed by municipality, challenging the award passed by learned Industrial Tribunal, admittedly, undisputedly findings of the learned Tribunal are confirmed by learned single Judge. What emerges on record from paras 11 and 12 of the judgment impugned can be safely referred under. Para-11 and 12 of the judgment of the learned single Judge, read as under: “11. What emerges on record from paras 11 and 12 of the judgment impugned can be safely referred under. Para-11 and 12 of the judgment of the learned single Judge, read as under: “11. When the impugned award is examined, it comes out that above mentioned order dated 7.10.2006 was placed on record before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal has taken into consideration the observations by the Court in the said order dated 7.10.2006. 11.1 Besides this, the learned Tribunal also took into account the evidence available on record including the oral evidence by the witness of the Nagarpalika. 11.2 On the basis of the evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal reached to the finding of fact that the claimants were employed by the nagarpalika and that they were working with the nagarpalika since more than 1015 years and that they were working regularly and continuously in the category of Safai Kamdar. 11.3 The learned Tribunal took into account that the nagarpalika had invited application in October 1999 and that the claimants were called in the process of interview. 11.4 The learned Tribunal also took into account the letter dated 6.8.2007 by the Director of Municipalities whereby sanction to regularize service of 49 claimants came to be granted. 11.5 The learned Tribunal also took into account the resolution passed by the nagarpalika in the meeting held on 30.4.2007. 11.6 The learned Tribunal also took into account that according to the resolution passed by the nagarpalika, 56 posts / vacancies had to be filled up. 12. 11.5 The learned Tribunal also took into account the resolution passed by the nagarpalika in the meeting held on 30.4.2007. 11.6 The learned Tribunal also took into account that according to the resolution passed by the nagarpalika, 56 posts / vacancies had to be filled up. 12. From the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal on the basis of material available on record and more particularly in light of the details recorded by this Court in the order dated 7.10.2006 in above mentioned group of petitions, it has emerged that – (a) on the establishment of the nagarpalika; (b) posts for Safai Kamdar are available; (c) the said posts are sanctioned; (d) there are vacancies in respect of the said posts; (e) the claimants have been working with the nagarpalika against the vacant sanctioned/permanent posts; and that (f) they have been working regularly for more than 15 years; and that (g) they were engaged after conducting interview; and that (h) at the time when the respondents came to be appointed, any procedure / rules for selection and recruitment were not framed and were not in force in petitioner nagarpalika; and that (i) therefore it cannot be said that the appointments were irregular. 12.1 At this stage, it is necessary to note that any material, much less cogent and satisfactory evidence to convince the Court that the said findings of fact recorded by the learned Tribunal are incorrect or perverse, is not shown by the petitioner from the record. Therefore, the said findings of fact recorded by the learned Tribunal in the award cannot be faulted and disturbed.” 6. The municipality invited applications in October, 1999 and after initiating process of interview, employees-workmen were appointed. Learned Tribunal also noticed the fact about the material, which appeared before it in the form of letter dated 6.8.2007 written by Director of Municipalities, whereby sanction to regularize the services of 49 workmen came to be granted and also resolution passed by municipality on 30th April, 2007 from which it clearly emerges on record that 56 posts/vacancies were filled in. 7. 7. In the above facts and circumstances, learned single Judge further discussed that during pendency of writ-petition, earlier order was passed on 7.10.2006 in Special Civil Application No. 21194 of 2006 to 21243 of 2006, whereunder municipality had already forwarded proposal to the Director of Municipalities and in the order dated 28.12.2006 passed in the above proceedings, Director of Municipalities was joined as party-respondent. Accordingly, learned single Judge considered the material, which was produced before the learned Tribunal about the tenure of various employees from which it was clear that none of the workmen had rendered service of less than 10 years. By placing reliance on various decisions of the Apex Court, the learned Tribunal, considering the peculiar facts of the case, observed that employees were not entitled for any amount of arrears but such amount is to be treated as notional pay and only benefits are conferred w.e.f. 14.12.2011 when demand was raised by the workmen. Learned Tribunal referred to following decisions of this Court and the Apex Court in the context of relevant sections: (i) Judgment of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 21194 to 21243 of 2006; (ii) Durgapur Casual Workers Union and others vs. Food Corporation of India (2015 CLR page no. 379); (iii) Umrala Gram Panchayat vs. Secretary, Municipal Employees Union and others (2015) II CLR page 57) (iv) Jetpur Navagadh Nagarpalika vs. Rohit Bhagvanbhai Hirani (2013 I CLR 3820 and; (v) O.N.G.C. Ltd vs. Petroleum Coal Labour Union and others in Civil Application No. 3727 of 2015 (judgment of Apex Court); 7.1. After relying on the above decisions, the learned Tribunal passed order for treating the employees as regular employees and conferring such other benefits on them upon their rendering not less than 14 years of service with municipality continuously. Confirmation of the said award of the Tribunal by learned single Judge in exercise of power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India warrants no interference in this appeal. In the absence of merits, this letters patent appeal is dismissed. Consequently, civil application for stay stands disposed of.