JUDGMENT : 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned award dated 22.06.2009 passed by the Labour Court at Bhuj in Reference [L.C.D.] No.9 of 2004 whereby the Labour Court has directed the petitioners to regularize the service of the respondent as Class – IV employee in the category of peon w.e.f. 09.02.1985 and also to regularize consequential benefits including the difference of arrears of pay, dearness allowance etc. w.e.f. 09.02.1985 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, the petitioners have preferred the present petition under Articles 14, 16, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the following prayers :- A. Admit the present Special Civil Application. B. Allow the present Special Civil Application by way of issuing appropriate writ of mandamus or writ of cerritary or any other writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the award dated 22.06.09 passed by the Hon’ble Labour Court at Bhuj in Reference [LCD] 9/04 annexed as ANNEXURE – E by way of holding that the same is illegal, unjust, arbitrary, erroneous and contrary to the facts and evidence on record, against the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat against the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and without jurisdiction in the interest of justice. C. Pending the admission, final hearing and disposal of the present Special Civil Application be pleased to stay the implementation, execution and operation of the award dated 22.06.09 passed by the Hon’ble Labour Court at Bhuj in Reference [LCD] 9/04 annexed as ANNEXURE – E in the interest of justice. D. Call for the record and proceeding of the case bearing Reference [LCD] 9/04 from the Hon’ble Labour Court at Bhju by way of passing appropriate orders in the interest of justice. E. Pass such other and further orders as the nature and circumstances of the case may require, in the interest of justice. 2. Brief facts of the case is that the respondent herein – workman has approached the Labour Court contending that he was serving as peon w.e.f. 09.02.1982 and was being paid monthly salary of Rs.1136/- and he was appointed by petitioner - Corporation herein vide order dated 09.02.1982. It is contended that he was performing duty as peon on permanent basis. That, there is set-up of peon in the institution and the post is vacant. It is contended that he was performing duty as peon on permanent basis. That, there is set-up of peon in the institution and the post is vacant. It is also contended that the opponents No.1 and 2 (petitioners No.1 and 2 herein) were not regularizing the service of the workman and they were not making permanent him. It is contended that even the workman is treated as part-time workers and it is shown that the work, only for four hours per day, being taken from the workman. However, in reality, he is working as full time worker. It is contended that the workman is entitled to get regularization of service for the post of peon with ancillary benefits. It is also contended that had the workman appointed on the post of peon in the pay scale of Rs.194 – Rs.272 than he could have got Rs.7,000/- per month and the respondents herein have not given any benefits of the permanent employee to the workman. It is contended that the workman has worked for 240 days in every year and, therefore, he is entitled for regularization of his service on permanent basis. It is alleged that the necessary legal notice was issued to the respondents, but they have not given positive response to him and, therefore, he has filed the reference. It is further contended that the petitioners herein need to follow the Government resolutions and they have to regularize the service of the workman with ancillary benefits of salary and dearness allowance along with the interest thereof. 3. Heard Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Mukesh Ratod, learned counsel for the respondent through video conferencing. 4. Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioner – Corporation is a corporate body and it has followed the instructions of the Government and there is sanctioned set-up. He has submitted that now, the Corporation is received the instructions that the staff members has been transferred to the other institutions. He has submitted that the workman was working as part timer and was never appointed on permanent post. He has submitted that he has approached the Lobour Court for regularization of the service after almost 22 years of service. He has submitted that there is no satisfactory reasons provided for filing such reference after 22 years. He has submitted that the workman was working as part timer and was never appointed on permanent post. He has submitted that he has approached the Lobour Court for regularization of the service after almost 22 years of service. He has submitted that there is no satisfactory reasons provided for filing such reference after 22 years. He has submitted that there is clear stand of the petitioners to the fact that the workman was part timer and he was only doing the work of sweeping for four hours only in a day. He has submitted that he was working on temporary post. He has submitted that in his cross-examination, the workman has accepted that he was working on contingency basis. Further, he has submitted that whether the Labour Court has no authority to pass such order when the employee has no case. He has submitted that the reasoning for granting regularization as assigned by the Labour Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He has submitted that the reliance placed on the various Government Resolutions by the Labour Court is erroneous and those resolutions and circulars are not applicable to the present case. He has submitted that the Corporation is registered under the Companies Act and it has own Rules and Regulations for recruitment and, therefore, the Government resolutions and circulars are not automatically applicable to it. 4.1 Mr. Munshaw, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that without verifying the fact that the concerned circulars and resolutions are not applicable in a present case, the Labour Court has passed the impugned award. He has submitted that there was no post available for granting the prayer of permanent / regularization of service. He has submitted that due to the impugned award, there is financial implication and the interest is penal in character. He has submitted that the interest is only admissible in the case of non-payment of pension. He has submitted that the petitioner – Corporation has also closed. He has submitted that the impugned award of the Labour Court is factually incorrect and deserves to be quashed and set aside. He has prayed to allow the present petition. 4.2 Mr. Munshaw, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the following decisions : 1. State of Tamil Nadu Vs. A. Singamuthu, (2017) 4 SCC 113 ; 2. Amreli Municipality Vs. He has prayed to allow the present petition. 4.2 Mr. Munshaw, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the following decisions : 1. State of Tamil Nadu Vs. A. Singamuthu, (2017) 4 SCC 113 ; 2. Amreli Municipality Vs. Gujarat Pradesh Municipal Employees Union, 2004 (2) GLH 692 ; 3. Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. Rajesh Pravinchandra Rajyaguru, 2020 (4) G.L.H. 491 ; 4. Judgment of dated 23.06.2015 passed by this Court (Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Sonia Gokani) in Ratilal Rajubhai Solanki Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation in Letters Patent Appeal No.16044 of 2013; 5. Per contra, Mr. Mukesh Rathod, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently submitted that the impugned award of the Labour Court is in consonance with the materials placed on record and it has taken into consideration the various government resolutions and circulars which have not been followed by the petitioners. He has submitted that the learned counsel for the petitioners has, for the first time, raised the question of part timer, however, no such question was raised before the Labour Court. He has submitted that the workman was transferred from one place to another by order dated 30.03.2000 which has been produced before the Labour Court. He has submitted that this action of the petitioners suggests that the workman was serving on Class – IV post. He has submitted that it is an admitted fact that the workman was working since 23 years. He has submitted that can there any part timer on contingency for almost 23 years. According to him, the workman has produced various documentary evidence which includes the letter of interview, various office orders and the various resolutions, but there is no rebuttal evidence produced by the Corporation. He has submitted that the issue of delay has not been raised by the Corporation in written statement and, therefore, that point cannot be considered in the present case. He has submitted that the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners is not in consonance with the materials placed on record before the Labour Court. He has submitted that the impugned award of the Labour Court is factually and legally sustainable in the eyes of law. He has submitted that the impugned award is not perverse and therefore it does not require to be interfered with. He has submitted that the impugned award of the Labour Court is factually and legally sustainable in the eyes of law. He has submitted that the impugned award is not perverse and therefore it does not require to be interfered with. He has submitted that the reliance placed upon various decisions by the learned counsel for the petitioners are concerned, the same are not applicable to the factual aspects of the case. He has submitted that so far as the payment of interest is concerned, it is within the discretion of the Court. He has submitted that the Corporation has exploited the workman and, therefore, the payment of interest cannot be said to be penal in nature. 5.1 While relying upon the following decisions, Mr. Rathod, learned counsel for the respondent has prayed to dismissed the petition. (1) Umrala Gram Panchayat Vs. Secretary, Municipal Employees Union and others, (2015) 3 GLR 2197 ; (2) Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another Vs. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana, (2009) 8 SCC 556 ; (3) The order of the Division Bench dated 26.09.2013 rendered in Gujarat State Land Development Corporation Ltd and another in Letters Patent Appeal No.2652 of 2004 in Special Civil Application No.8575 of 1989 which came to be confirmed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 10.01.2014 rendered in Special Leave Petition (C) No.38939 of 2013; 6. In rejoinder, Mr. Munshaw, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there was no averments made in the statement of demand for making him permanent. He has submitted that the certificate issued to the workman which has been relied upon by the workman before the Labour Court are only for quality of his work, but it does not give him any right for regularization. Regarding the use of word “part-time”, he has submitted that it is just a manual work. He has submitted that so far as the delay aspect is concerned, it is legal aspect and can be raised at any stage of proceedings which includes petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and even at the appellate stage. He has submitted that the workman was not full time employee. He has prayed to allow the present petition. 7. He has submitted that so far as the delay aspect is concerned, it is legal aspect and can be raised at any stage of proceedings which includes petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and even at the appellate stage. He has submitted that the workman was not full time employee. He has prayed to allow the present petition. 7. In the case of State of Tamil Nadu (supra), the Apex Court has summarized the principles of regularization, while placing reliance upon its earlier decision in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Daya Lal, (2011) 2 SCC 429 . The Apex Court has observed in para-16 as under :- “16. In State of Rajasthan and Others Vs. Daya Lal and Others (2011) 2 SCC 429 , this Court has considered the scope of regularisation of irregular or part-time appointments in all possible eventualities and this Court clearly laid down that part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularisation as they do not work against any sanctioned posts. It was also held that part-time employees in government-run institutions can in no case claim parity in salary with regular employees of the government on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Relevant excerpt from the said judgment is as under: (SCC pp. 435-36, para 12) “12. We may at the outset refer to the following well settled principles relating to regularization and parity in pay, relevant in the context of these appeals: (i) High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue directions for regularization, absorption or permanent continuance, unless the employees claiming regularization had been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an open competitive process, against sanctioned vacant posts. The equality clause contained in Articles 14 and 16 should be scrupulously followed and courts should not issue a direction for regularization of services of an employee which would be violative of constitutional scheme. While something that is irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of selection which does not go to the root of the process, can be regularized, back door entries, appointments contrary to the constitutional scheme and/or appointment of ineligible candidates cannot be regularized. While something that is irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of selection which does not go to the root of the process, can be regularized, back door entries, appointments contrary to the constitutional scheme and/or appointment of ineligible candidates cannot be regularized. (ii) Mere continuation of service by a temporary or ad hoc or daily-wage employee, under cover of some interim orders of the court, would not confer upon him any right to be absorbed into service, as such service would be 'litigious employment'. Even temporary, ad hoc or daily- wage service for a long number of years, let alone service for one or two years, will not entitle such employee to claim regularization, if he is not working against a sanctioned post. Sympathy and sentiment cannot be grounds for passing any order of regularization in the absence of a legal right. (iii) Even where a scheme is formulated for regularization with a cut-off date (that is a scheme providing that persons who had put in a specified number of years of service and continuing in employment as on the cut-off date), it is not possible to others who were appointed subsequent to the cut-off date, to claim or contend that the scheme should be applied to them by extending the cut-off date or seek a direction for framing of fresh schemes providing for successive cut off dates. (iv) Part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularization as they are not working against any sanctioned posts. There cannot be a direction for absorption, regularization or permanent continuance of part time temporary employees. (v) Part time temporary employees in government run institutions cannot claim parity in salary with regular employees of the government on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Nor can employees in private employment, even if serving full time, seek parity in salary with government employees. The right to claim a particular salary against the State must arise under a contract or under a statute. See: State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 , M. Raja v. CEERI Educational Society, (2006) 12 SCC 636 , S.C. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand, (2007) 8 SCC 279 , Kurukshetra Central Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Mehar Chand, (2007) 15 SCC 680 and Official Liquidator v. Dayanand, (2008) 10 SCC 1 ” (emphasis added)” 8. See: State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 , M. Raja v. CEERI Educational Society, (2006) 12 SCC 636 , S.C. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand, (2007) 8 SCC 279 , Kurukshetra Central Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Mehar Chand, (2007) 15 SCC 680 and Official Liquidator v. Dayanand, (2008) 10 SCC 1 ” (emphasis added)” 8. It appears that only opponent No.2 – petitioner No.2 herein has filed written statement wherein it is admitted that the respondent herein – workman was working since 09.02.1982. However, it is stated that the workman has worked as part-time workman and the service of four hours was taken from him. It is also stated that the post on which the respondent herein was working is not permanent post and he was never appointed on the post of peon. It is further stated that the workman was given the work of sweeping in the office. It is also stated that respondent – department is established by the Government and it is working under the guidelines of the Government and it has not breached any of the Rules and Regulations or the notification of the Government. It is stated that as per the Government Resolutions issued from time to time, the workman is paid with minimum wages as per the Wages Act. It is stated that the workman being paid fixed remuneration of Rs.1136.20 paise. It is, therefore, urged to reject the reference. 9. It appears that before referring to the reference by the concerned Conciliation Officer, the conciliation proceedings was initiated and thereafter, the reference is referred to the Labour Court under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It appears from the award of the Labour Court that the workman has relied upon various government resolutions including the letter of interview given by the petitioners herein to the respondent and the letter of appointment and other orders issued from time to time. Whereas, on behalf of the original opponents – petitioners herein, one affidavit of Shri Bhailalbhai Bhawanbhai, Assistant Director has been produced at Exhibit 20 and no other evidence has been produced by the petitioners herein. 10. Whereas, on behalf of the original opponents – petitioners herein, one affidavit of Shri Bhailalbhai Bhawanbhai, Assistant Director has been produced at Exhibit 20 and no other evidence has been produced by the petitioners herein. 10. On perusal of the impugned award of the Labour Court that while relying upon the various government resolutions and circulars and the fact that the workman has worked since 09.02.1982 and has completed almost 23 years at the time of passing of the impugned award, the Labour Court has granted award in favour of the workman directing the petitioners herein to regularize the service of the workman as Class IV and to grant pay scale and ancillary benefits with 12% interest. 11. It appears from the record and proceedings and the version of the workman, which has been made on oath, that in view of the government resolutions, he was called for interview for the post of peon. But, as he has not completed the five years of service at the relevant time, he was not interviewed. He has also deposed that thereafter, he was called for interview, but, he was not informed regarding the result thereof. According to him, he has studied upto 8th Standard, whereas, the qualification for peon is only passing of 4th Standard. He has submitted that he is serving in the respondent since almost 23 years and other persons have been regularized, whereas, he has not been granted benefits as per the Government resolutions. On perusal of his cross-examination, it appears that he has accepted that at the relevant time he was serving on contingency basis. But, other factors which he has referred to in his chief-examination have not been challenged in his cross-examination. 12. On perusal of the materials placed on record, it transpires that the Finance Department has issued resolution dated 26.12.1980 regarding regularization of the part-time employee who has completed continuous service of three years. The said circular has been issued in furtherance of earlier resolution of the Finance Department being PCR-2576/73-M dated 24.03.1976. The relevant portion of the Government Resolution of the Finance Department, which is produced at Exhibit 40 in the Trial Court, dated 26.12.1980 especially para-2 needs to be reproduced, which is as under:- “2. The said circular has been issued in furtherance of earlier resolution of the Finance Department being PCR-2576/73-M dated 24.03.1976. The relevant portion of the Government Resolution of the Finance Department, which is produced at Exhibit 40 in the Trial Court, dated 26.12.1980 especially para-2 needs to be reproduced, which is as under:- “2. Whenever, part time employment has continued for 3 years, the Head of the Department should make efforts as per the prescribed recruitment Rules and procedure for filing in the posts, to absorb such incumbents in regular posts that may be available under his control and to replace the incumbent by a fresh part time employee.” 13. It also appears from the letter dated 11.05.1986 at Exhibit 39 that in consonance with the Government Resolution, there was official communications to the effect that the persons who have completed five years of service on contingency and whose Education-Qualification is of 4th Standard pass and age between 18 years to 30 years, they should be called for interview for the post of peon. On perusal of the letter dated 11.12.1986 at Exhibit 39, it is clearly found that the name of the present petitioner has been shown therein. It also reveals from letter dated 21.02.1987 at Exhibit 21 addressed to the workman that as he has not completed five years continuous service, he was not permitted to appear in the interview. This letter is issued by the petitioner herein. It also reveals from the resolution issued by the Agriculture Forest and Cooperative Department dated 04.06.1981 at Exhibit 42 that age relaxation is granted in favour of the persons, who were working in the department. On perusal of the office order at Exhibit 22 which is passed on the basis of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 based on the Dolatram Parmar Committee, the provisions have been made in consonance with the resolution dated 17.10.1988 for granting various benefits to the work-charged employee etc., which suggests that the daily wagers who have not completed five years of continuous service then, they would be entitled for minimum wages. It also provides therein that the persons who have completed five years continuous service, but who have served for particular years of service, as such, not completed ten years service, then, they would be paid fixed salary of an amount of Rs.750/- plus dearness allowance prevailing at the relevant time and they would be entitled for casual leave and option leave in all 14 days and would be entitled to get remuneratioin for Sunday. There is also provision in para-3 that the persons who have completed ten years of service and upto fifteen years service, they would be entitled to get pay scale as applicable to the Class IV employee. It is also provided therein that they are treated to be as permanent for all purpose. There are other provisions providing various benefits to the persons who have completed more than 15 years of service. Now, admittedly, this circular is applicable to the petitioner herein also. 14. It also appears from the letter at Exhibit 43 addressed to the workman i.e. the respondent wherein he was directed to remain present for the post of peon which, letter has been issued by the Managing Director of the petitioner herein. 15. It also appears from the statement prepared by the Assistant Director of the petitioner herein which is at Exhibit 44 that the name of the respondent is shown at Sr.No.2 and date of his initial appointment is 09.02.1982 and at the time of preparation of statement, he has completed 17 years of service. It is also appears from the other statement at Exhibit 45 prepared by the officer that regarding particulars of the respondent as on 01.10.1988 wherein there is specific note to the effect that as per the Government Resolution dated 01.10.1988, as the respondent has completed six years of service, he is entitled to get pay of Rs.750/- per month and it was requested to make him permanent. All the aforesaid documentary evidence which are in the nature of the Government Resolutions and Circulars and also official communications made by the present petitioners to the respondent clearly suggests that the workman is entitled to get fixed pay after completion of five years of service and, thereafter, on completion of five years of service, he is entitled to pay scale of Class IV employee and after completion of ten years of service, he is entitled to get the permanency and ancillary benefits. Thus, the respondent – workman is entitled to get the benefits as per the office order at Exhibit 22. Therefore, the reference made by the workman needs to be granted. However, the award passed by the Labour Court in granting the benefits of permanency to the employee w.e.f. 09.02.1985 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Merely because, there is Government Resolution to consider the person who has continuously served for three years being considered for the permanent appointment as Class IV servant, it does not ipso facto creats any right in favour of the workman to be considered as permanent employee. The other resolutions granting various benefits of permanency in completion of certain period of service needs to be taken into consideration. Therefore, the impugned award needs to be quashed and set aside. However, the petitioners herein need to be directed to comply with the office order passed on 02.03.1990 which is in consonance with the resolution of the Government dated 17.10.1988 based on the report of Dolatram Parmar Committee. 16. In view of the above, the following order will serve the end of justice. 17. The petition is partly allowed. The impugned award dated 22.06.2009 passed by the Labour Court at Bhuj in Reference [L.C.D.] No.9 of 2004 is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioners are directed to give all the benefits as per its own office order dated 02.03.1990 at Exhibit 22, which is based upon the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 which is based on the Dolatram Parmar Committee recommendation, to the respondent within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the writ of this Court. The petitioners are directed to pay all the benefits available to him including the arrears of pay and pension and other ancillary benefits in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith. The petitioners are directed to pay all the benefits available to him including the arrears of pay and pension and other ancillary benefits in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith. No order as to costs. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.