JUDGMENT : 1. By way of this petition, which is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the Award dated 28.09.2017 passed by the Labour Court, Rajkot in Reference (LCR) No. 9 of 2003, by which, the Labour Court has rejected the reference and thereby not regularized the services of the petitioner workman. 2. Looking to the issue involved in the present petition, learned advocates appearing for the parties jointly requested that this petition be disposed of finally. Hence, Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Bhargav Pandya waives service of notice of Rule for respondents. 3. Learned advocate Mr. D. G. Shukla appearing for the petitioner submitted that petitioner workman was appointed as a Watchman-cum-Guard by the respondent No.1 in the year 1982. He has been working for about 36 years on the said post and he had also worked as a Clerk for certain period. However, till date, the petitioner workman has not been regularized in service and made permanent by the respondent department despite the fact that petitioner is working on the sanctioned post. Petitioner, therefore, raised industrial dispute through Union seeking permanency/regularization in service which came to be referred for adjudication before the Labour Court, Rajkot. It is submitted that Statement of Claim was filed by the petitioner and the respondent filed Written Statement denying the allegations made in the Statement of Claim. Both the parties produced documentary as well as oral evidence before the Labour Court. Labour Court passed impugned Award by which reference of the petitioner has been rejected. Petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition. 4. Learned advocate Mr. D. G. Shukla has referred the documents placed on record and thereafter submitted that petitioner was appointed in the year 1982 and thereafter he has worked with the respondent Department for number of years. In the meantime, in the year 2003, services of the petitioner came to be terminated by the respondent without following mandatory provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘I.D.Act’ for short). Petitioner, therefore, raised the dispute which was referred to the Labour Court and the Labour Court passed an Award, whereby direction was given to the respondent to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and without back-wages. Pursuant to which the respondent has reinstated the petitioner. Petitioner, therefore, raised the dispute which was referred to the Labour Court and the Labour Court passed an Award, whereby direction was given to the respondent to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and without back-wages. Pursuant to which the respondent has reinstated the petitioner. It is further submitted that in the cross-examination of the witness of the respondent, it is specifically admitted by him that petitioner has performed duty for 23 years and at present also petitioner is working at Jasdan in Vivekanand Nursery. He has further admitted that benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 issued by the State Government is given to the daily-wagers, who are working since number of years. However, benefit of permanency is not given to the petitioner. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Shukla further submitted that in similar type of case, this Court has granted benefit to the concerned workman, who was working since years with the concerned Department. Learned advocate has placed reliance upon the order dated 07.09.2015 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.10869 of 2014, which is modified by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.04.2016 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.65 of 2016. Learned advocate has also placed reliance upon the order dated 27.11.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No.17959 of 2017 and allied matters. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Shukla would thereafter submit that as per the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, certain benefits are given to the Rojamdars/Daily-wagers, who are working in different Government Departments for a particular years. At this stage, it is also submitted that similar type of benefit is also ordered to be given to the daily-wagers, who are in service for a particular period with the Forest Department and engaged in the work other than building, maintenance and repair work, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat and others v. PWD Employees Union and others, reported in (2013) 12 SCC 417 . Learned advocate has referred the said decision. 7. Learned advocate has referred the said decision. 7. At this stage, it is also submitted that relying upon the aforesaid decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as per the direction issued in the aforesaid decision, the State Government has issued Resolution dated 15.09.2014 by which it has been decided to grant benefit to the Daily-wagers of Forest and Environment Department as similar to that of the benefits given under G.R. dated 17.10.1988. It is submitted that as per the said Resolution, if the Rojamdar/Daily-wager has completed more than 10 years of service as on 29.10.2010 such Rojamdars/ Daily-wagers are deemed to be considered as permanent workmen. Copy of the said Resolution is also produced on record. 8. Learned advocate Mr. Shukla thereafter placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umrala Gram Panchayat v. Secretary, Municipal Employees Union, reported in (2015) 12 SCC 775 in support of his submissions. 9. Learned advocate for the petitioner, therefore, urged that the impugned Award passed by the Labour Court be quashed and set aside and thereby direction be issued to the respondents to grant benefit of permanency to the petitioner – workman. 10. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Pandya has opposed this petition and referred the reasoning recorded by the Labour Court while passing the impugned Award. It is contended that petitioner was not appointed after following due procedure of law and merely because he has worked for a particular period, he is not entitled to get the benefit of permanency. It is further submitted that petitioner has not claimed benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 before the Labour Court and therefore the Labour Court has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner. It is, therefore, urged that this petition be dismissed. 11. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court in the case of Amreli Municipality v. Gujarat Pradesh Municipal Employees Union, reported in 2004 (2) GLH 692 . It is submitted that as per the said decision, Labour Courts/Industrial Tribunals cannot issue directions conferring benefit of permanency or regularization when recruitment in the local body has been made dehors the Recruitment Rules. 12. It is submitted that as per the said decision, Labour Courts/Industrial Tribunals cannot issue directions conferring benefit of permanency or regularization when recruitment in the local body has been made dehors the Recruitment Rules. 12. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material placed on record, it is revealed that petitioner was appointed as a Watchman-cum-Guard by the respondent No.1 in the year 1982. During some period, he has also worked as a Clerk. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he was appointed on the permanent vacant post and he has been working with the respondent No.1 since number of years. It has also come on record that when the services of the petitioner came to be terminated in the year 2003, he raised industrial dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court and ultimately, Labour Court passed an Award in favour of the petitioner by which direction was given to the respondent to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service without back-wages and the respondent No.1 has implemented the said Award. In the said Award, findings were recorded by the Labour Court that petitioner has completed more than 240 days in number of years. 13. It further transpires from the record that the State Government issued Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 by which it was decided to grant certain benefits to the Rojamdars/Daily-wagers, who are working with the R & B Department since number of years. Such benefits were not granted to the Rojamdars/Daily-wagers, who are working with the Forest Department. Now, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has decided the issue in the case of PWD Employees Union and others (supra) in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in para 29 as under: “29. As per the scheme contained in the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 all the daily wage workers were not entitled for regularisation or permanency in the services. As per the said Resolution the daily wagers are entitled to the following benefits: (i) They are entitled to daily wages as per the prevailing daily wages. If there is presence of more than 240 days in first year, daily wagers are eligible for paid Sunday, medical allowance and national festival holidays. 1. As per the said Resolution the daily wagers are entitled to the following benefits: (i) They are entitled to daily wages as per the prevailing daily wages. If there is presence of more than 240 days in first year, daily wagers are eligible for paid Sunday, medical allowance and national festival holidays. 1. Daily wagers and semi-skilled workers who have service of more than five years and less than 10 years are entitled for fixed monthly salary along with dearness allowance as per prevailing standard, for his working days. Such daily wagers will get two optional leaves in addition to 14 miscellaneous leaves, Sunday leave and national festival holidays. Such daily wagers will also be eligible for getting medical allowance and deduction of provident fund. (iii) Daily wagers and semi-skilled workers who have service of more than ten years but less than 15 years are entitled to get minimum pay scale on a par with skilled workers along with dearness allowance as per prevailing standard, for his working days. Moreover, such daily wagers will get two optional leaves in addition to 14 miscellaneous leaves, Sunday leave and national festival holidays. He/She will be eligible for getting medical allowance and deduction of provident fund. (iv) Daily wagers and semi-skilled workers who have service of more than 15 years will be considered as permanent worker and such semi-skilled workers will get current pay scale of skilled worker along with dearness allowance, local city allowance and house rent allowance. They will get the benefit as per the prevailing rules of gratuity, retired (sic retiral) salary, general provident fund. Moreover, they will get two optional leaves in addition to 14 miscellaneous leaves, 30 days' earned leave, 20 days' half-pay leave, Sunday leave and national festival holidays. The daily-wage workers and semiskilled workers who have completed more than 15 years of their service will get one increment, two increments for 20 years service and three increments for 25 years in the current pay scale of skilled workers and their salary will be fixed accordingly.” 14. Thus, from the aforesaid decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is clear that daily-wagers and semi-skilled workers, who are in service for more than 15 years, will be considered as permanent worker and they are entitled to get certain benefits as mentioned in the said decision. Thus, from the aforesaid decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is clear that daily-wagers and semi-skilled workers, who are in service for more than 15 years, will be considered as permanent worker and they are entitled to get certain benefits as mentioned in the said decision. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that now the State Government has issued the Government Resolution dated 15.09.2014 after the aforesaid decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and as per the said Resolution also, if the Rojamdar/Daily-wager has completed 10 years or more service as on 29.10.2010, such Rojamdar/Daily-wager is deemed to be considered as permanent and certain benefits are required to be granted to such daily-wagers. 15. In the case of Umrala Gram Panchayat (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in para 16 to 19 as under: “16. The reliance placed by the learned senior counsel for the appellant upon the decision of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors.[3], [5][6] (2006) 4 SCC 1 does not apply to the fact situation of the present case and the same cannot be accepted by us in the light of the cogent reasons arrived at by the courts below. 17. In view of the reasons stated supra and in the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case, we hold that the services of the concerned workmen are permanent in nature, since they have worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year from the date of their initial appointment, which is clear from the evidence on record. Therefore, not making their services permanent by the appellant-Panchayat is erroneous and also amounts to error in law. Hence, the same cannot be allowed to sustain in law. 18. For the reasons stated supra, we dismiss the appeals and direct the appellants to treat the services of the concerned workmen as permanent employees, after five years of their initial appointment as daily wage workmen till they attain the age of superannuation for the purpose of granting terminal benefits to them. 19. The appellant is further directed to pay the regular pay-scale as per the revised pay scale fixed to the post of permanent safai kamdars for a total period of 15 years to the concerned workmen and the legal representatives of the deceased workmen. 19. The appellant is further directed to pay the regular pay-scale as per the revised pay scale fixed to the post of permanent safai kamdars for a total period of 15 years to the concerned workmen and the legal representatives of the deceased workmen. The same shall be implemented within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment and compliance report of the same shall be submitted for the perusal of this Court. No Costs.” 15.1. The learned Single Judge of this Court, after considering the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umrala Gram Panchayat (supra), observed in para 9 of the order dated 27.11.2017 passed in Special Civil Application No.17959 of 2017 and allied matters, as under: “9. ….............As stated hereinabove, respondents – employees in each of the petitions worked for number of years and are not getting any benefits at par with permanent workmen and, therefore, the facts of the above cases are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and, hence, in my opinion, Tribunal has not committed any error in granting the relief.” 16. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court in the case of Amreli Municipality (supra). However, the said decision would not be applicable in the facts of the present case. In the said case, the local authority has made recruitment dehors the Recruitment Rules and without previous sanction of the Director of Municipalities, which is statutory requirement. The appointment was made without there being any sanctioned set-up and therefore the Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court has held that order of regularization of service of such employee of Municipality or Local Authority cannot be passed by the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court. In the present case, it is revealed from the material placed on record and it is the specific case of the petitioner that he was appointed on the permanent post and he has been working with the respondent No.1 since number of years. In the cross-examination of the witness of the respondent, he has specifically admitted that petitioner is working since last more than 23 years and the benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 is given to the daily-wagers, who are working with the respondent No.1, however, the benefit of permanency is not given to the petitioner. In the cross-examination of the witness of the respondent, he has specifically admitted that petitioner is working since last more than 23 years and the benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 is given to the daily-wagers, who are working with the respondent No.1, however, the benefit of permanency is not given to the petitioner. Thus, when the similarly situated persons, who are working with the respondent No.1 as daily-wagers since number of years are getting the benefit of Government Resolutions, there was no reason for the respondent to deny such benefit to the petitioner. Even otherwise, now, during the pendency of the reference before the Labour Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 is also required to be given to the daily-wagers, who are working with the Forest & Environment Department. Accordingly, Government Resolution dated 15.09.2014 is issued by the State Government. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has completed more than 10 years of service as on 29.10.2010, and therefore, even otherwise, petitioner is deemed to be considered as permanent workman as per the said Resolution. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, Award dated 28.09.2017 passed by the Labour Court, Rajkot in Reference (LCR) No. 9 of 2003 is hereby quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to give the benefit of permanency to the petitioner as per the policy of the State Government from the date on which the petitioner is entitled to receive it. 18. With the aforesaid observations and directions, petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute accordingly. 19. Registry to communicate this order to the concerned person/authority by fax or email.