JUDGMENT : Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J. 1. This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is at the instance of the original writ applicant and is directed against the order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 13.10.2017 in the Special Civil Application No.17982 of 2016 by which the learned Single Judge declined to entertain the writ application and rejected the same. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be summarised as under :- 2.1 The appellant (original writ applicant) is a body corporate established under the provisions of Section 3 of the Gujarat Agricultural Universities Act, 2004 enacted by the State of Gujarat. It is fully a aided educational institution engaged in the educational activities and imparting education in agriculture and allied sciences and humanities in the State of Gujarat. The appellant appointed the respondents No.1 and 2 as daily rated field labourers on 31.3.1996 and 1.10.1996 respectively on purely temporary and ad hoc basis on the payment of minimum wages as fixed by the State Government under the Minimum Wages Act. The respondent had undertaken that they would not claim any right on the post. 2.2a The respondents instituted industrial dispute being Reference (IT) No.31 of 1998 claiming regularization in service after completion of 240 days and prayed that they be paid all benefits payable to the regular employees and also claimed arrears. The said reference was contested by the appellant (original writ applicant). 2.2b The stance taken by the respondents before the Industrial Disputes Tribunal was that the respondents were engaged purely on ad hoc basis due to exigency of work. The respondents are unskilled field labourers and are not entitled for regularization de hors the Recruitment Rules and accordingly the reference was required to be rejected. 2.3 Pending the reference the respondents filed the Misc. Application No.25 of 1997 before the Industrial Tribunal for stay against the apprehended termination. The Industrial Tribunal by order dated 27.3.2002 restrained the University from terminating the services of the respondents without following due process of law. The appellant University filed Application (IT) No.58 of 2002 in the Reference (IT) No.31 of 1998 under Section 33(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking permission to terminate the services of the respondents which came to be rejected by the learned Tribunal by order dated 29.6.2016. The appellant University filed Application (IT) No.58 of 2002 in the Reference (IT) No.31 of 1998 under Section 33(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking permission to terminate the services of the respondents which came to be rejected by the learned Tribunal by order dated 29.6.2016. 2.4 The Industrial Tribunal allowed the reference instituted by the respondents and directed the University to treat the respondents as permanent Agricultural Assistants with effect from 1.1.2009 and fix the existing pay-scale with all the benefits as per the Pay Commission. The permanency benefits were directed to be treated as notional and no arrears were ordered to be paid. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal the appellant – University filed the Special Civil Application No.17982 of 2016. The learned Single Judge while rejecting the writ application made following observations in paragraphs 4.1 to 4.6 :- “4.1 It is not in dispute that both the workmen are in employment with the petitioner since the year 1996. There was no interim order of the Tribunal, not to discontinue the service of the workmen. On the contrary, during the pendency of the Reference, it was the say of the employer before the Tribunal that, there was no occasion to discontinue the service of the workmen, except in accordance with law. The employer has never attempted to discontinue the service and thus the argument that the continuance of service of the workmen was because of some interim order of the Tribunal is contrary to record and therefore that argument is rejected. 4.2 Both the workmen are treated to be skilled labourers by the management. The question is of giving them some nomenclature. As skilled labourers, they should be treated in which category – was the issue. For this purpose, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the documents of the employer itself, which were on record. This Court has considered the reasons recorded by the Tribunal in that regard, and no infirmity is found therein. This Court has also taken into consideration the document Exh. 58, which the Tribunal has also referred to. The petitioner employer himself has referred the respondents as Agricultural Assistants / Skilled Labourer. The argument of learned advocate for the petitioner that, the Tribunal has created the posts which do not exist, is thus contrary to its own record. This Court has also taken into consideration the document Exh. 58, which the Tribunal has also referred to. The petitioner employer himself has referred the respondents as Agricultural Assistants / Skilled Labourer. The argument of learned advocate for the petitioner that, the Tribunal has created the posts which do not exist, is thus contrary to its own record. 4.3 This Court has also taken into consideration the reasons recorded by the Tribunal, more particularly in para – 9 of the award. It transpires that the Tribunal has taken into consideration the documents and evidence led before it and has evaluated those documents, to arrive at a just conclusion. It is also a matter of record that the complete record, as asked for by the Tribunal was not produced by the employer and this aspect is also noted by the Tribunal in the award (internal page-21 of the award). 4.4 The Tribunal has considered the material on record and has also come to the conclusion that there was unfair labour practice by the employer against these two workmen, since they were continued as temporary employees only with a view to deprive them from the benefits, which otherwise they were entitled to. This Court finds that, the Tribunal has not committed any error, either in the reasoning, or in the conclusion, or in the final direction given by it. It is also noted that the Tribunal has also tried to balance the equities between the parties, since the benefit granted to the workmen are only notional and no arrears is directed to be paid to them. 4.5 So far reliance on the decision of Supreme Court of India in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi and others (2006) 4 SCC 1 , as relied by the learned advocate for the petitioner is concerned, there can not be any dispute with regard to proposition of law annunciated in the said decision, however the said judgment is subsequently considered by the Supreme Court in India in the cases of (i) Umrala Gram Panchayat V/s Secretary, Municipal Employees Union reported in (2015) 12 SCC 775 and (ii) Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another Vs. Casterive Rajya P. Karamchari Sanghatan 2009 (8) SCC 556 , wherein the duty of the Labour Courts / Tribunals under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are discussed by the Supreme Court, vis-a-vis the decision in the case of Uma Devi (supra). On conjoint consideration, this Court finds that the decisions relied by learned advocate for the petitioner would not take the case of the employer any further. In totality, no interference is required in the impugned award and this petition needs to be dismissed.” 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting the Special Civil Application No.17982 of 2016 the appellant has come up with the present appeal. 5. We have heard Mr. D. G. Chauhan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant (original writ applicant) and Mr. Anshin Desai, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Venu Nanavaty, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents through video conferencing. 6. The appellant as well as the respondents have filed their written submissions and the same are taken on record. 7. Submissions on behalf of the appellant (writ applicant) :- 7.1 Mr. D. G. Chauhan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant (original writ applicant) submitted that the respondents were engaged as daily wage field labourers on purely temporary and ad hoc basis without following due process of selection under recruitment rules and they are being continued in service pursuant to interim order dated 25.10.1997 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Misc. Application No. 25 of 1997. Since they have were continued in service pursuant to interim relief, they are not entitled for regularization. 7.2 It is submitted that the Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi – reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 (Paras 2, 43, 48, 52 & 53) prohibited public employment without following due process of recruitment in accordance with recruitment rules and in full compliance with Articles 14 & 16 of Constitution of India. 7.3 It is submitted that the Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to create the posts and give appointments to nonqualified persons working as daily wagers de hors the recruitment rules. The respondents are not possessing requisite qualifications for the post of Agriculture Assistants. The Learned Industrial Tribunal has overreached the recruitment rules and law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court. The respondents are not possessing requisite qualifications for the post of Agriculture Assistants. The Learned Industrial Tribunal has overreached the recruitment rules and law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court. Reliance is placed on the decisions reported in (1979) 3 SCC 762 , (1981) 3 SCC 451 & (2005) 1 SCC 639 it is submitted that the impugned award and directions to treat the respondents as permanent agricultural assistants w.e.f. 01.01.2009 and fix existing pay-scale and granting all benefits with yearly increment as per the Pay Commission are without jurisdiction, null and void ab initio. 7.4 It is submitted that pursuant to advertisement dated 17.09.2008, the respondents had applied for the post of Agriculture Assistant and the selection committee did not select the respondents on the ground that the respondent no.1 was not possessing requisite qualifications for the post in question and the respondent no.2 was not selected on merits. 7.5 It is submitted that Fifth Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act deals with unfair labour practice. Item 10 of the said Schedule provides that “to employ workman as ‘badli’, casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years, with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of a permanent workman”. i. On 31.03.1996 and on 01.10.1996, the respondents were engaged as field labourers. ii. Within a year, on 30.03.1998, the respondent had raised an industrial dispute claiming regularization with all benefits. iii. Pursuant to advertisement dated 17.09.2008, the applications for appointment to the post of Agriculture Assistants were rejected. On the basis of these facts the appellant has submitted that the allegation of unfair labour practice is not tenable in law. The respondents have failed to prove the allegation of unfair labour practice. 7.6 It is further submitted that the judgement in the case of Umrala Gram Panchayat v. Secretary, Municipal Employees Union And Others reported in (2015) 12 SCC 775 relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. It is thus submitted that the present case is governed by Recruitment Rules for the Post of Agriculture Assistant. (2003) 5 SCC 568 (Para 23) 7.7 The appellant also relied upon the following judgments in support of his case; (1) Dr. Arundhati Ajit Pargaonkar Vs. State of Maharashtra,1994 Supp.(3) SCC 380. It is thus submitted that the present case is governed by Recruitment Rules for the Post of Agriculture Assistant. (2003) 5 SCC 568 (Para 23) 7.7 The appellant also relied upon the following judgments in support of his case; (1) Dr. Arundhati Ajit Pargaonkar Vs. State of Maharashtra,1994 Supp.(3) SCC 380. (2) Amreli Municipality v. Gujarat Pradesh Municipal Employees’ Union, 2004 (3) GLR 1841 (FB). (3) Mahendra L. Jain V/s. Indore Development Authority (2005) 1 SCC 639 (4) State of Karnataka V/s. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 , (5) Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. V/s. Workmen (2007) 1 SCC 408 Para 2, 13, 34 to 38, 43 and 48 (6) R.M. Yellatti V/s. Assistant Executive Engineer (2006) 1 SCC 106 (7) State of Rajasthan V/s Daya Lal, (2011) 2 SCC 429 . (8) Nand Kumar V/s State of Bihar, (2014) 5 SCC 300 . (9) Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai Vs. R. Govindaswamy & others (2014) 4 SCC 769 . The appellant has thus submitted that in view of the settled legal principles on the subject matter, the Learned Single Judge ought to have quashed and set aside the impugned award passed by the Industrial Tribunal and, therefore, the present appeal be allowed. 8. Submissions on behalf of the respondents :- 8.1 Mr. Anshin Desai, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Venu Nanavaty submitted that the respondents herein came to be appointed by the Appellant University as Agriculture Assistants in the year 1996 and they have been working with the University as Skilled Labourers/Agriculture Assistants since then. The respondents herein are continuously and without any complaint serving for more than 25 years with the appellant University. 8.2 It is submitted that on a Reference being made before the Industrial Tribunal, the Industrial Tribunal vide Award dtd. 29.06.2016 Industrial Tribunal was pleased to direct the Appellant to treat the Respondents herein as permanent Agriculture Assistants with effect from 01.01.2009 and accordingly, fix scale pay and grant all benefits with yearly increments as per the Pay Commissions. 8.3 It is submitted that the respondents herein have not only been serving as Agriculture Assistants with the University but also the University has treated the Respondents as Agriculture Assistants and the Respondents have also been able to prove completion 240 days of continuous service for grant of permanency as per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 8.3 It is submitted that the respondents herein have not only been serving as Agriculture Assistants with the University but also the University has treated the Respondents as Agriculture Assistants and the Respondents have also been able to prove completion 240 days of continuous service for grant of permanency as per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 8.4 Following documents are relied upon by the respondents to substantiate their submissions :- a. The Appellant University issued Certificates dtd. 24.11.2003 wherein it has been certified that Respondents have been in continuous service since 31.03.1996 as Skilled labourers and that they possess the requisite qualifications for the said post. (Exh.34) (pg. no. 139, Annexure-R1) and 01.10.1996 (Exh.38) (pg. no.170, Annexure-R1) b. These certificates have not been denied by the Opponent before the Tribunal and hence the same remained undisputed (observation at pg. no. 95, 96) c. In the salary receipts for the Month of 2013, the Respondents have been referred to as ‘Agriculture Assistants’ produced at Exh. 58 and Exh. 59. These receipts have infact been admitted and not controverted in the Cross-examination of the Appellant (Exh.96) (observation at pg.no.99) d. That the salary receipts from the year 1996 to 2011 produced as Exh. 36 and Exh. 41 clearly show that the deponent has been rendering continuous services. These documents have not been disputed by the Appellant. (observation at pg.no.100). 8.5 It is submitted that the Industrial Tribunal has rightly decided the terms of Reference since the Industrial Tribunal has jurisdiction and is empowered to exercise its powers under the Act to grant permanency to the workers/ employees specially in cases of Unfair Labour Practice: a. In the case of ONGC Ltd. vs. Petrol Coal Union reported in 2015 (6) SCC 494 , the Supreme Court of India while referring to the case of Umadevi has concluded that the I.D Act is an exhaustive legislation and the authority of the Ld. Tribunal is wide which includes grant of permanent status to the employee, the underlying message contained in Umadevi’s case would not deter the Industrial Tribunals/Labour Courts from issuing such direction, which the industrial adjudicators otherwise possess, having regard to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act specifically conferring such powers. Tribunal is wide which includes grant of permanent status to the employee, the underlying message contained in Umadevi’s case would not deter the Industrial Tribunals/Labour Courts from issuing such direction, which the industrial adjudicators otherwise possess, having regard to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act specifically conferring such powers. Unfair labour practice on the part of the employer in engaging employees as badlis, casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for Page 4 of 6 years with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent employees as provided in Item 6 of Schedule IV and the power of the Industrial and Labour Courts under Section 30 of the Act did not fall for adjudication or consideration before the Constitution Bench, Umadevi does not denude the Industrial and Labour Courts of their statutory power to order permanency of the workers who have been victims of unfair labour practice on the part of the employer under Item 6 of Schedule IV where the posts on which they have been working exist. Umadevi cannot be held to have overridden the powers of the Industrial and Labour Courts in passing appropriate order. 8.6 It is submitted that the defence of lack of appointment without following recruitment rules cannot be sustained when continuous services are being taken and the employees are being exploited monetarily which amounts to unfair labour practice: a. In a case similar to the facts of the present case has been decided that the Apex Court in the case of Umrala Gram Panchayat vs. Secretary, Municipal Employees Union reported in 2015 (4) Scale 334 wherein the Supreme Court of India upheld the order of the Ld. Labour Court whereby safai kamdars who were serving for long years were not being considered for permanent post and therefore a dispute was raised and it was held that the workmen are to be made permanent employees as safai kamdars in the appellant- Panchayat and also granted wages, allowances and other monetary benefits as well for which they are legally entitled to. It is submitted that in the case as mentioned above, the Supreme Court of India observed that the decision rendered in the case Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC1 does not apply to facts such cases as he provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and the powers of the Industrial and Labour Courts Page 5 of 6 provided therein were not at all under consideration in Umadevi's case. That in the said decision the observation in the case of Casual Workers Union Versus Food Corporation Of India reported in 2015 (5) SCC 586 is considered which also relates to similar facts and circumstances. 8.7 It is submitted that the Tribunal came to a conclusion that the Respondents were recruited as per the prevailing policy and rules at the time of initial appointment (observation at pg.no.102, 103) The recruitment rules have not been produced before the Tribunal and argument based on these recruitment rules is being raised for the first time before this Court. 8.8 It is submitted that the grant of permanency to the Respondents does not amount to creation of supernumerary post since there were vacancies available for the said post. As per the information provided by the Assistant Deputy Secretary, Junagadh Agriculture University under the Right to Information Act, 2005 there are 52 positions vacant for the post of Agriculture Assistant in the Opponent University [annexed at pg. no.14, Annexure-B in C.A no.3064 of 2017 (vacating interim relief) in SCA no.17982 of 2016] 8.9 It is submitted that it is a well settled principle of law that in petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India of the Constitution of India, the High Court will have limited jurisdiction and in exercise of the jurisdiction, High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or tribunal and therefore, cannot review or reassess evidence upon which the court/tribunal has passed the order. Even when two views are possible the view which is subjected to challenge may not be interfered with. That the supervisory jurisdiction is usually not exercised when there is no error apparent on the face of record. 8.10 Reliance is placed on the following decisions: a. Raj Kumar Bhatia vs. Subhash Chander Bhatia reported in 2018 (2) SCC 87 – paragraph no.12 to 14 b. Hemendrabhai Lilachand Shah vs. Laxmanji Hiraji Thakor L.H.Of Decd. That the supervisory jurisdiction is usually not exercised when there is no error apparent on the face of record. 8.10 Reliance is placed on the following decisions: a. Raj Kumar Bhatia vs. Subhash Chander Bhatia reported in 2018 (2) SCC 87 – paragraph no.12 to 14 b. Hemendrabhai Lilachand Shah vs. Laxmanji Hiraji Thakor L.H.Of Decd. reported in 2018 (0) AIJEL-HC 240248: 2018 JX(Guj) 891 – paragraph 12 to 25 Analysis :- 9. It appears that the learned Single Judge took notice of the following :- (i) Indisputably the workmen are in employment with the University since the year 1996. (ii) The workmen continued in service not on the basis of any interim order passed by the Tribunal. (iii) The University never attempted to discontinue the service of the workmen and thus the argument of the University that the continuance of service of the workmen was because of some interim order is contrary to the record. (iv) All the workmen are treated to be skilled labourers by the Management. The Tribunal took into consideration the documents of the University itself and recorded a finding that the University itself has referred the workmen as the Agricultural Assistants/skilled labourers. (v) The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the case is one of unfair labour practice. The Tribunal said so because the workmen were continued as temporary employees only with a view to deprive them from the benefits which otherwise they are entitled to. (vi) The learned Single Judge relied upon two decisions of the Supreme Court; (a) Umrala Gram Panchayat (Supra) and (b) Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another (Supra) and thought fit not to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. 10. After taking into consideration the aforesaid, if the learned Single Judge thought fit to reject the petition then in our opinion no error not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed by the learned Single Judge warranting any interference with the award of the Tribunal in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. 11. While dealing with the present appeal, one has to bear in mind that a intra Court appeal is really not a statutory appeal preferred against the judgment and order of an inferior to the superior Court. 11. While dealing with the present appeal, one has to bear in mind that a intra Court appeal is really not a statutory appeal preferred against the judgment and order of an inferior to the superior Court. The appeal inter se in a High Court from one Court to another is really an appeal from one coordinate Bench to another Coordinate Bench and it is for this reason that a writ cannot be issued by one Bench of the High Court to another Bench of the High Court nor can even the Supreme Court issue writ to a High Court. Thus, unlike an appeal, in general, an intra Court appeal is an appeal on principle and that is why, unlike an appeal, in an ordinary sense, such as a criminal appeal, where the whole evidence on record is examined afresh by the appellate Court, what is really examined, in an intra Court appeal, is the legality and validity of the Judgment and/or Order of the Single Judge and it can be set aside or should be set aside only when there is a patent error on the face of the record or the judgment is against the established or settled principle of law. If two views are possible and a view, which is reasonable and logical, has been adopted by a Single Judge, the other view, howsoever appealing such a view may be to the Division Bench, it is the view adopted by the Single Judge, which should, normally, be allowed to prevail. Hence, the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge should not be completely ignored and this Court has to consider the judgment and order in its proper perspective and if this Bench, sitting as an appellate Bench, is of the view that the decision has been arrived at by the learned Single Judge without any material error of fact or law, then, the judgment, in question, should be allowed to prevail. 12. In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.