ORDER 1. Though notice has been issued in the matter but counsel for the petitioner has pressed for hearing in view of the fact that the Labour Court is initiating proceedings for non compliance of the direction issued in the award. 2. In nutshell, the respondents along with the other persons were classified as permanent by the petitioners by order dated 13.8.2004 but subsequently by the order dated 23.7.2011 the order of classification of the respondents as permanent was cancelled, therefore, at the instance of the respondents the dispute was raised and the matter was referred by the Labour Commissioner to the Labour Court under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Labour Court after permitting the parties to lead evidence and taking note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramnaresh Rawat reported in 2016(8) SCC 733 had reached to the conclusion that the respondents had become entitled for classification as permanent employee with effect from 13.8.2004 and from that date they were entitled to the minimum of the scale. Accordingly the reference has been ordered in favour of the respondents-workmen by passing the award dated 4.6.2019. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the year 2004 the posts were not vacant, therefore, the respondents could not have been classified as permanent employee and by the subsequent order passed in the year 2011 the earlier order of classification as permanent employee has been rightly cancelled. 4. Having examined the record, it is noticed that the Labour Court has duly considered the material in this regard and has reached to the conclusion that the respondents were classified as permanent employee because the posts were vacant. Nothing has been pointed out to show that the conclusion so arrived at by the Labour Court suffers from any error. 5. That apart, against the similar award of the Labour Court earlier the writ petitions were filed and matter had reached to Division Bench in WA No.693/2018 in the case of Executive Engineer, PHE Maintenance Div.2, Musakhedi v. Jivan Ram Patel and others and connected writ appeals and the Division Bench by order dated 10.8.2018 had partly allowed the writ appeals by observing as under:- “17. The law on the subject is well settled in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat v. Ashwini Ray & Ors. (supra). The law on the subject is well settled in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat v. Ashwini Ray & Ors. (supra). The respondents have been classified as permanent employees on 13.8.2004 and, therefore, now at this stage, after a period of 14 years we cannot grant liberty to the appellant/State to consider as to whether they have been classified as per policy framed by the State Government or whether they have been entitled for classification as permanent employees under the Rules. 18. Considering the fact that the permanent status was conferred upon employees in the Year 2004, we set aside the impugned order in part and directed the appellant to grant minimum regular pay-scale to them from the date of their classification as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 23 of Ram Naresh Rawat v. Ashwini Ray & Ors. (supra). 19. In the result, the W.A. No. 693/2018 and other connected writ appeals are allowed in part. Consequently, R.P. 924/2018 and R.P. No.1109/2018 stands dismissed accordingly.” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the present case also stands on the same footing. 7. Having regard to factual position noted above, findings of the Labour Court and the order of the Division Bench passed in Writ Appeal No. 693/2018, I do not find any merit in the present miscellaneous petition which is accordingly dismissed. Petitioner is granted 4 weeks’ time to comply with the order of the Labour Court.