ORDER : BIREN VAISHNAV, J. 1. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1224 of 2018 is preferred by the Gujarat Pollution Control Board – employer – respondent before the learned Single Judge whereas Letters Patent Appeal No. 1209 of 2018 has been preferred by the employee – petitioner before the learned Single Judge. Both these appeals arise out of an oral judgement dated 17.03.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in respective writ petitions. Under challenge before the learned Single Judge in the above captioned writ petitions was an award of June 2005 passed by the Labour Court in Reference (LCR) No. 20 of 1995 by which the Labour Court, Rajkot directed that the respondent – original workman be granted permanency and be regularized in service as peon-cum-Chowkidar. The Labour Court further directed that the respondent workman was extended all arrears of pay as if the workman was regularized in service. 2. The respondent workman filed a Statement of Claim before the Labour Court contending that he was appointed as a Peon-cum-Chowkidar on 07.12.1984 on a sanctioned post. It was the case before the Labour Court that he was given a fixed period appointment on 29 days basis. On his services being terminated on expiry of the 29th day which was extended from time to time, on 29.09.1985 he approached the Labour Court by filing Reference No. 1442 of 1986 claiming reinstatement with full backwages. By an award dated 06.12.1991, the order of termination was set aside and the workman was reinstated in service to his original post with continuity of service and backwages. 3. The employer – appellant herein preferred Special Civil Application No. 658 of 1992, wherein initially interim relief was granted against backwages. However, reinstatement was not stayed. The employee workman was reinstated in service on 27.02.1992, 7 years after his initial termination. The employer’s petition was dismissed and the Court confirmed the award of reinstatement, however, reducing the amount of backwages to 20%. On 01.06.1993, the respondent was again appointed for a period of 29 days. He was subsequently granted regular pay scale of Rs.750-940 with effect from 01.09.1996 with all benefits. He was subsequently granted regular pay scale of Rs.2550-3200 on 17.11.1998. Raising a claim of regularization, he filed reference which is the subject matter of these appeals. 4. On 01.06.1993, the respondent was again appointed for a period of 29 days. He was subsequently granted regular pay scale of Rs.750-940 with effect from 01.09.1996 with all benefits. He was subsequently granted regular pay scale of Rs.2550-3200 on 17.11.1998. Raising a claim of regularization, he filed reference which is the subject matter of these appeals. 4. The employer – appellant of Letters Patent Appeal No. 1224 of 2018 filed written statement opposing the claim for regularization. The respondent workman examined himself and also examined one Mr. Nalinbhai Gordhanbhai Raval at Ex. 45 and one Mr. Mahipatsinh Laghubha Jadeja at Ex. 46 in support of his claim. The appellant Board examined the Administrative Officer one Mr. K.M. Patel at Ex. 55 in order to refute the claim of the respondent workman. The Labour Court on appreciation of evidence found that the applicant was continued in service uninterruptedly, however, on paper artificial breaks were given and looking to the fact that having once succeeded before this Court and secured a favourable order of reinstatement with continuity of service, the employee workman was entitled to the benefits of regularization of service. 5. The learned Single Judge extensively considered and appreciated the award of the Labour Court and considered the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi [ (2006) 4 SCC 1 ], Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Others versus Castetribe State Employees Federation [ (2009) 8 SCC 556 ], Durgapur Casual Workers Union and Others vs. Food Corporation of India and Others [AIR 2015 SC (Supp) 574], Gujarat Maritime Board and Others vs. Ashokkumar Ijjatrai Anjaria and Another [2008(3) GLH 767], State of Karnataka vs. M.L. Kesari [ (2010) 9 SCC 247 ]. The learned Single Judge in the judgement under challenge observed as under: “8. In various departments, when the Apex Court found that such process had not been started, a direction had been given to consider the case for regularisation. No process of one time regularisation had been initiated by the department of the present respondent. The Labour Court having found the unfair trade practice, had directed for regularisation of the respondent. In various departments, when the Apex Court found that such process had not been started, a direction had been given to consider the case for regularisation. No process of one time regularisation had been initiated by the department of the present respondent. The Labour Court having found the unfair trade practice, had directed for regularisation of the respondent. Going by even the fact that the decision in the case of Uma Devi (supra) was not there for the Labour Court to consider, when it directed to regularisation, noticing glaring facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is necessary and even going by the decision in the case of Uma Devi (supra), M.L. Kesari (supra) and other decisions, which have been cited and discussed hereinabove, with no one time measure having been initiated by the petitioner Board, on the ground of the respondent having worked for all these years, any Court would have directed the petitioner to regularise his service. In such view of the matter, when the challenge is made by the petitioner Board to the award of regularisation, this Court sees no justification in interfering with the impugned award. 9. This Court is conscious of the fact that the powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India are to be exercised sparingly. This Court notices that the respondent was from the very beginning working against a sanctioned post. So there was no question of creating any new post or interfering with the jurisdiction of the executive of deciding the aspect of creation of posts. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the present petition fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Rule is discharged. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. It is clarified that all the benefits to the respondent be accrued from the date of the impugned award. The service of the respondent shall be counted from the date of his appointment. He shall be given increments from the date of the impugned award and not from the date of his appointment. The period for which the respondent has not served the petitioner-Board, shall be treated as dies non. Disposed of accordingly. Direct Service is permitted.” 6. The service of the respondent shall be counted from the date of his appointment. He shall be given increments from the date of the impugned award and not from the date of his appointment. The period for which the respondent has not served the petitioner-Board, shall be treated as dies non. Disposed of accordingly. Direct Service is permitted.” 6. Having considered the judgement of the learned Single Judge, what is apparent is that the learned Single Judge having perused the award of the Labour Court and considering the evidence that was produced before the learned Single Judge concluded that it was apparent that the respondent workman – appellant of Letters Patent Appeal No. 1209 of 2018 was working on sanctioned post right from the beginning and there was no question therefore of creating any new post or interfering with the jurisdiction of the Executive of deciding the aspect of creation of posts. 7. For the reasons therefore the learned Single Judge disposed of the petition of the employer clarifying that all the benefits will accrue to the workman respondent from the date of the impugned award i.e. 13.06.2005 and the services of the employee shall be counted from the date of his appointment. The learned Single Judge further directed that he shall be given increments from the date of the award and not from the date of his appointment. The period for which the employee had not served was directed to be treated as dies non. Aggrieved by this order of the learned Single Judge, both the employer Board as well as the employee workman are in appeal. 8. Mr. D.G. Chauhan, learned advocate for the employer Board while arguing the appeal submitted that the learned Single Judge as well as the Labour Court adopted an erroneous approach overlooking the provisions of the recruitment rules. He submitted that respondent was employed as a daily wager and therefore derived no legal right of being regularized. He was not working on a sanctioned post and therefore the appellant being a statutory body was not bound to regularize the services in accordance with the directions given by the Labour Court. 9. Mr. U.T. Mishra, learned advocate for the respondent workman supported the judgement of the learned Single Judge and the award so passed. He was not working on a sanctioned post and therefore the appellant being a statutory body was not bound to regularize the services in accordance with the directions given by the Labour Court. 9. Mr. U.T. Mishra, learned advocate for the respondent workman supported the judgement of the learned Single Judge and the award so passed. However, he also assailed the order of the learned Single Judge on being partly aggrieved by the fact that the benefits that were given otherwise by the Labour Court had been restricted by the learned Single Judge by giving effect to the award only from the date of award in question and not from the date of initial appointment. 10. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having perused the award of the Labour Court and the judgement of the learned Single Judge, what is apparent is that the respondent workman had been working with the employer Board since the year 1984. Having been terminated in the year 1985, he approached the Labour Court; succeeded therein; got an award of reinstatement which was confirmed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 658 of 1992; was subsequently reinstated after 7 years with continuity of service. Having worked on a sanctioned post without any break, considering the judgements of the Apex Court which have been referred to by the learned Single Judge, we see no reason to interfere with the findings of the Labour Court as confirmed by the learned Single Judge. 11. However, Mr. D.G. Chauhan, learned advocate for the employer Board has fairly stated that pending these appeals the employee workman has retired from service on 29.09.2018 and has been paid Rs.2,22,843/- towards the amount of gratuity. He however states that the Board would pay all retirement benefits on the basis of his last revision of pay treating him continuous in service from the date of his appointment till the date of his retirement i.e. 29.09.2018. The amount of gratuity paid shall be deducted from the retirement benefits and that he shall not be entitled to any amount of arrears. 12. Mr. The amount of gratuity paid shall be deducted from the retirement benefits and that he shall not be entitled to any amount of arrears. 12. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for the respondent though has reservations on the above, however, in the interest of justice, we are of the opinion that it shall be in the fitness of things to modify the award of the Labour Court and the judgement of the learned Single Judge, particularly when the employee has already retired from service in 2018 and the award of the Labour Court is to a substantial extent being honoured by the employer Board. The following order is accordingly passed: (I) The Board would treat the respondent in continuous service as a regular employee from the date of his appointment till the date of his retirement. (II) The Board would pay all retiral benefits on the basis of the last revision of pay treating him continuous in service. (III) The amount of gratuity of Rs.2,22,843/- already paid to the workman shall be deducted from the retiral benefits. (IV) The respondent shall not be entitled to any amount of arrears. 13. With the above directions, appeals are disposed of. Civil Application also stands disposed of accordingly.