JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner, a port officer of Veraval Port, Gujarat Maritime Board, challenges the award dated 10.11.2016 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot, whereby the reference of 11 workmen has been partly allowed. The petitioner was permitted to show the designation of the said workmen as ‘job clerk’ instead of ‘daily wager’ and also ordered to give the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to workmen Dipak G. Dave and Dhaval N. Joshi, although they have been appointed after 23.01.1992. 2. Brief facts leading to the petition under Articles 226 and 227 are as follow: 2.1 Respondent No.1 Union filed reference contending that the workmen are S.S.C. pass and having experience of more than seven years. They were given the scale of clerk as per the Government Resolution, however, the Head Office of the Gujarat Maritime Board has changed designation of their post from job clerk to Mazdoor. Hence, they prayed to be referred to as the job clerk in the seniority list instead of Mazdoor and regularize their services. 2.2 The statement of claim insisted on they being called the job clerk so also for regularization of the services. 2.3 The petitioner filed the detailed reply contending that there is no change in the service condition. The Gujarat Maritime Board decided to fill up the permanent post from daily wagers only. Earlier the seniority list used to be prepared by the port officer, however, as lot of issues with regard to the seniority had arisen, it had been decided to prepare a seniority list from Head Office. 2.4 It is the grievance of the petitioner that without looking at any of the vital aspects, the reference has been allowed and hence, the same is challenged under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers: “8... (A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any writ in nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the impugned award dated 10.11.2016 passed by the respondent No.2Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot in Reference (IT) No.161 of 2006 in the interest of justice. (A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any writ in nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the impugned award dated 10.11.2016 passed by the respondent No.2Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot in Reference (IT) No.161 of 2006 in the interest of justice. (B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased stay the execution, implementation and operation of the award dated 10.11.2016 passed by the respondent No.2Industiral Tribunal, Rajkot in Reference (IT) No.161 of 2006. (C) Be pleased to grant such other and further relief’s which may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 3. This Court on 12.12.2017 issued Rule. Learned advocate, Ms.Ashlesha Patel with learned advocate, Ms.Harshal Pandya for respondent No.1. 4. Additional affidavit has been filed by the Port Officer, Mr.Chaudhry, who has averred that the respondent union had made two demands. So far as the first demand is concerned, there are in all 14 employees and this demand concerns 09 employees only. Out of these 09 employees, only one employee has been represented through his lawyer and the rest of the employees have no grievance. There are no changes in the condition of service. They continued to get the same pay scale. Those of them who have passed S.S.C. examination, the pay scale of Rs.9501500 is given to them. The only workman who has appeared through the lawyer was appointed as Mazdoor on 23.06.1982 and he has been given all the benefits on his completion of particular number of years as per the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. It is not disputed that they shall get the pay scale of Rs.9501500 however, they continued to remain Mazdoor. It was the erstwhile Port Officer, who had given them the designation of the job clerk when these employees completed seven years of service, but, in fact, they continued to remain labourer. Common seniority list is prepared by the Head Office at Gandhinagar so that instead of initiating any selection process, those of them who have been working as daily wagers for number of years can be absorbed in the permanent establishment, and such a laudable objective cannot be overlooked. 5. Common seniority list is prepared by the Head Office at Gandhinagar so that instead of initiating any selection process, those of them who have been working as daily wagers for number of years can be absorbed in the permanent establishment, and such a laudable objective cannot be overlooked. 5. It is the say of the petitioner that when these employees were given the 6th pay scale, they have given the undertaking that they would not have any objection to treat them as daily wagers. There are no such similar benefits for job clerk in existence in Gujarat Maritime Board. Respondents are all the beneficiaries of report of Daulatbhai Parmar Committee, and mere wrong nomenclature by one of the Port Officers has led to this dispute. 6. So far as Dipakkumar Girjasankar Dave and Dhaval M.Joshi are concerned, they have been appointed respectively on 01.09.1992 and 20.05.1992. It is their grievance that juniors to them have already been granted benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. In the affidavit, it has been mentioned and original reference was filed through union and upon issuance of notice union and two workmen have signed the vakalatpatra so as to avoid the difficulty of appearance of concerned advocate. This petition is being opposed by two workmen only. Since other employee did not approach the union for appearing and opposing the petition qua them. The grievance is that juniors to them have since been granted the benefits vide order dated 11.05.2003 and 21.10.2003, the Labour Court has rightly passed an award, holding both these workmen entitled to receive benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. 7. This Court has heard the learned advocate, Ms.Mandaviya, who for the petitioner, has strenuously urged that nothing has been pointed out as to how the injustice is meted out to the respondent union and the workmen, since their names are included in the list of daily wagers instead of job clerks. The Industrial Tribunal has not discussed this aspect. It is incorrectly held that before correcting the nomenclature, no notice has been issued to the workmen and therefore, there is a violation of section 9 A of the I.D.Act. In fact, the workmen had given the undertaking that they have no objection to any change in their designation. 8. The Industrial Tribunal has not discussed this aspect. It is incorrectly held that before correcting the nomenclature, no notice has been issued to the workmen and therefore, there is a violation of section 9 A of the I.D.Act. In fact, the workmen had given the undertaking that they have no objection to any change in their designation. 8. It is further her say that those workmen who are appointed in post 23.01.1992 period would also not to be entitled to the benefits under the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. 9. Learned advocate, Ms.Ashlesha Patel has strenuously urged that so far as some of the workmen who are represented through her are concerned, they were working on the post of job clerk. However, on giving them monetary benefits of the 6th pay commission, their designation is changed to Mazdoor. Employees were constrained to give their consent on 04.04.2011 otherwise there is no rational for them to accept it. The Trial Court committed no error in holding that these respondents should be addressed as job clerk. She further urged that no interference is desirable under the circumstances. 10. Learned advocate, Ms.Mandaviya has urged that so far as both the job clerks, Shri Dipakkumar GirjaShakar Dave and Shri Dhaval N. Joshi are concerned, they are residents of Veraval. They have been appointed in post 23.01.1992 period. However, that should not in any manner preclude the petitioner to grant them the benefits as per the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. There are four such workmen, who have been given the benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, who otherwise have joined the service after 23.01.1992. The proposal also had been sent on 23.06.2005 to the Government, however, no decision has been taken by the State also. She has relied on the following decisions: (1) ATUL C. SONI VS. GUJARAT WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD (2) BIMALBHAI DINESHCHANKDRA PATNI & ANR vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS, where the Court held that grouping of daily wagers sought to be made by the Board on the basis of cut off date of 30.11.1994, to deny the benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 is illegal and arbitrary even for those who were appointed after 30.11.1994,and it directed that such benefits shall be extended as per the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. 11. 11. The Demand No.1: As far as this demand is concerned, it has been elaborately and extensively dealt with by the Labour Court. Noticing the fact that all those who have demanded the change of nomenclature had been appointed and their appointment had been made initially as the daily wager or unskilled labour. On their completion of seven years of services and since all of them had already passed the S.S.C. examination, they had been appointed as job clerk. It has been noted that in muster, reference of theirs is as the job clerk. This order had been passed on 01.05.1994. Mukesh Shukla and other five were appointed on 21.08.1996, Nalin Shukla and Mahendra A. Mehta and others were appointed on 07.12.1996, whereas Jitendra R. Mehta was appointed on 17.08.1999. On 28.02.1997, as per the report of Dolatbhai Parmar Committee benefits have been made available to these workmen and seniority list had been published on 09.03.1998, there also, the designation is of a job clerk. It is further noted that the seniority list of 01.07.2005 also has designated them as job clerk, the original source is the Mazdoor/Chokidar. Subsequently, in the seniority list, the designation of job clerk had been changed to term it as Mazdoor. While making such changes, no intimation has been given to those who are concerned, much less giving of notice. The adhoc seniority list prepared by the Port Officer on 01.01.2006 also indicated their designation as the job clerk. Thus, not only after the completion of seven years, these employees had been given the designation of the job clerk in a seniority list prepared as per the direction of the Gujarat Maritime Board, the seniority list of 31.12.2001 reflects their designation as job clerk. The industrial dispute at Section 9 A, the fourth schedule indicates as reflected in the said judgment and award that any change in the service condition shall need to be intimated to the workman and after issuance of the notice in 21 days, the changes are permissible. The item seven speaks of classification. 12. This Court notices that there has been no intimation given to any of the employees, the only time the meeting was conducted was on 28.11.2004 which was a union meeting, however, before making the changes, no intimation has been given. The item seven speaks of classification. 12. This Court notices that there has been no intimation given to any of the employees, the only time the meeting was conducted was on 28.11.2004 which was a union meeting, however, before making the changes, no intimation has been given. The Court, therefore, has held this act of the employer to be in breach of Section 9 (A) of the I.D.Act. 13. With regard to the Demand No.2 in relation to Dipak Dave and Dhaval Joshi, they served for more than 14 years and were having the qualification of S.S.C. pass. Only on account of their having been appointed in post 23.01.1992 period, they are not given the benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and the benefit of the 5th pay commission. 14. The written statements produced by the Port Authority has been taken into consideration. Noticing the oral as well as the documentary evidence, the trial court held that four workmen have already been given the benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. Therefore, in case of these two no discrimination can be permitted. Accordingly, the reference of all the 11 persons has been partly allowed. Thus, so far as the demand No.1 is concerned, nine employees’ named in the award are directed to be called as job clerk, whereas the other two were directed to be given the benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. 15. It is to be noted that in case of those who have been denied any benefits, they have chosen not to approach this Court. 16. Apt would be to refer to the decision of the Shalini Shyam Shetty and Another vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil; reported in (2010)8 SCC 329 , at this stage, which says that the Court in its Writ jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 is not to exercise the powers unless it found that the trial Court has acted beyond its jurisdiction or it has not acted within its bound. In absence of any such material, the Court is to exercise such jurisdiction very sparingly as the evidence which otherwise is capable of being interpreted differently, that also is not a ground for the Court to hold otherwise. 17. It is to be noted that in all industrial establishment and in the private establishment there are endeavors to designate people to accord them dignity and self esteem. 17. It is to be noted that in all industrial establishment and in the private establishment there are endeavors to designate people to accord them dignity and self esteem. for instance, the sweepers are being called the floor manager. Instead of calling a lady as housewife, she is being designated as a homemaker. 17.1 In this progressive era, when some of the respondents are already designated as job clerk, such nomenclature can not be changed to the designation of Mazdoor or the daily wager more particularly, because, they are made available the benefits under the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. Without availing any opportunity of hearing to change their designation even without changing other service conditions or their monitory benefits also, would not authorize the authority to so do it. Emphasis on the part of the Port Authority (Gujarat Maritime Board) was reiteratively that there is no change in the monetary benefit or the nature of work and therefore, the Court ought not to interfere, is a misconception. If one of the Port Officers in his move to accord dignity to the post or to the work of laborers which has been carried out by the employee has chosen to change nomenclature as job clerk and if that has continued in subsequent correspondence as well as in the seniority list prepared by the officer, there does not arise any need for changing it suddenly to Mazdoor. It is to be noted that these employees are not asking anything more than what they monetarily are granted nor do they ask for any change in their nature of duties performed by them and the change of designation also is not going to in any manner, substantiate the claim for any additional benefit and in fact, nowhere, they have made any request for reconsidering their monitory benefits by changing designation. What all they requested was not to change their designation for no rhyme or reason. What all they requested was not to change their designation for no rhyme or reason. 17.2 Again, the say of the employer that for availing the benefits of 17.10.1988, one has to be the labourer and, therefore, this change in designation is a must, also cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that grant of benefits to a particular cadre or class of employees or persons is what the law has prescribed, but, that cannot necessitate the change in nomenclature as there is no rationale to name it again Mazdoor and that too, without following the procedure , in contravention of provision of law. 18. Reiteratively, the learned advocates have urged that their only grievance is with regard to the nomenclature and not the aspect of monitory benefits nor the nature of duties which they are performing. The trial Court has rightly and correctly analyzed section 9A and all related schedule to quash and set aside the order of the petitioner authority. This Court sees no reason for any interference. 19. So far as the grant of benefits of two of the employees are concerned, the denial on the part of the petitioner is because their appointment has been made in post 23.01.1992 period. If four others have already been given the benefits, no discriminatory practice is permissible. No error much less any manifest illegality is committed by the trial Court. Petition is dismissed. Cost to be the cost in cause.