ORDER : A.J. Desai, J. 1. By way of present appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, present appellant - original petitioner – employee has challenged the order dated 01.12.2021 passed by learned Single Judge in captioned writ petition, by which, learned Single Judge, while dismissing the captioned writ petition, has upheld the award dated 17.10.2018 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara, below Exh. 18, in Reference (I.T.) No. 193 of 2014, by which, the claim of present appellant employee, who is working as conductor with the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (herein after referred to as ‘the Corporation’ for short) with regard to not extending the benefit of time scale after completion of 180 days, has been rejected by relying upon the Clause – 20 of the Settlement, which was entered into between the Union and the Employer. 2. Short facts arise from the record are as under: 2.1. That present appellant – original petitioner – employee was appointed in the post of conductor in December, 1997; however, he was not extended the benefit of time scale as per the Settlement dated 21.12.1989 entered into between the workman’s Union and the Employer. It is the case of present appellant employee that he would be entitled for getting the benefit of time scale after completion of 180 days from his initial appointment. It is also the case of the appellant employee that he was not deliberately placed as daily wager and was continued as “Badli worker” with the respondent corporation. 2.2. The appellant employee raised reference in the year 2014 claiming his rights from 1997. The said reference was rejected by order dated 17.10.2018, which was challenged before learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge, after considering the facts of present case and various decisions of this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to “Badli Worker”, dismissed the writ petition. 2.3 Hence, this appeal. 3. Mr. Paresh Brahmbhatt, learned advocate appearing for the appellant – employee, has vehemently submitted that learned Tribunal as well as learned Single Judge have committed grave error in relying upon the decisions of this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in view of the fact that the facts of present case on hand and the facts of those cases, which are dealt with by learned Single Judge, are different. By taking us through the cross-examination of the witness at Exh. 14, he would submit that the said witness has admitted that he had worked continuously and has also admitted that when the appellant employee was appointed as “Badli Worker”, the posts were sanctioned. He would submit that as per Clause – 20 of the settlement, the appellant employee would be entitled for the benefits since the appellant employee had completed 180 days in the year 1997. He would submit that learned Tribunal as well as learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated the details of the sanctioned posts, seniority list etc. which ought have been produced by the respondent employer before learned Tribunal and, therefore, they cannot take advantage of the same. He would further submit that in such circumstances, adverse inference can be drawn against the employer. In support of his submissions, he has relied the decision in the case of R.M. Yellatti Vs. Asstt. Executive Engineer reported in (2006) 1 SCC 106 . By taking us through Para – 17 of the said decision, he would submit that in absence of any documents, presumption would go in favour of the employee. He, therefore, would submit that the case, which has been decided by the Division Bench of this Court and upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, is not applicable to the facts of present case and, therefore, present appeal be admitted. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Hamesh Naidu, learned advocate appearing for the respondent – Corporation, has supported the award passed by learned Tribunal as well as confirmed by learned Single Judge. By taking us through the award, he would submit that learned Tribunal has exhaustively dealt with all the issues raised by the appellant employee keeping in mind the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He would submit that apart from this aspect, there is delay and laches on the part of the appellant employee in filing the reference. He would submit that the appellant employee is claiming the benefits since 1997 whereas he has filed reference in the year 2014 i.e. after almost 16 to 17 years. By taking us through an unreported decision dated 04.05.2016 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Paresh Harilal Mandlik Vs. Division Controller and Anr. He would submit that the appellant employee is claiming the benefits since 1997 whereas he has filed reference in the year 2014 i.e. after almost 16 to 17 years. By taking us through an unreported decision dated 04.05.2016 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Paresh Harilal Mandlik Vs. Division Controller and Anr. in Letters Patent Appeal No. 322 of 2016 and allied appeals, he would submit that delay aspect has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court. By taking us through the decision dated 07.03.2018 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ghanshyamsinh Pratapsinh Parmar Vs. Division Controller and Anr. in Civil Appeal No. 2556-2592 of 2018 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 6115-6151 of 2018), he would submit that Clause–20 has been dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. By taking us through Para–8 of the award passed by learned Tribunal, he would submit that the appellant employee had not filed any application to produce any documentary evidence with regard to vacant post or seniority list etc, if any, with regard to the “Badli Worker” prepared by the Corporation. In such circumstances, he would submit that learned Tribunal has rightly come to conclusion that as per Clause-20 of the Settlement, the appellant employee had not fulfilled all the conditions. He would submit that all the aspects have been dealt with by learned Tribunal exhaustively and, therefore, considering the same, the appeal may be dismissed. 5. In support of his submissions, Mr. Naidu, learned advocate for the respondent – Corporation has relied upon the following decision : S. No. Particulars 1. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. S.T. Worker’s Union, decision passed in Special Civil Application No. 10974 of 1993. 2. Divisional Controller Vs. Yunus Binmohammed Bavajeer, decision passed in Special Civil Application No. 11711 of 2002. 3. Divisional Controller Vs. Ghanshyamsinh Pratapsinh Parmar, decision passed in Special Civil Application No. 10908 of 2014. 4. Divisional Controller Vs. Dharmendrasinh Balbhadrasinh Waghela, decision passed in Special Civil Application No. 10977 of 2014. 5. Mansuri Mustakahmad Abdulrehman Vs. Divisional Controller, decision passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1021 of 2014. 6. Divisional Controller Vs. Maheshbhai Navalshankar Pandya, decision passed in Special Civil Application No. 11717 of 2014. 7. Ghanshyamsinh Pratapsinh Parmar Vs. Divisional Controller, decision passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1185 of 2014. 8. Paresh Harilal Mandlik Vs. 5. Mansuri Mustakahmad Abdulrehman Vs. Divisional Controller, decision passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1021 of 2014. 6. Divisional Controller Vs. Maheshbhai Navalshankar Pandya, decision passed in Special Civil Application No. 11717 of 2014. 7. Ghanshyamsinh Pratapsinh Parmar Vs. Divisional Controller, decision passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1185 of 2014. 8. Paresh Harilal Mandlik Vs. Division Controller, decision passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 322 of 2016. 9. Bhupendra Kumar Chimalbhai Kachiya Patel Vs. Division Controller, GSRTC Nadiad, decision passed in Civil Appeal No. 2546 of 2018 by Hon’ble Supreme Court. 10. Prabhakar Vs. Joint Director Sericulture Department and Ors., decision passed in Special Leave Petitioner (Civil) No. 27080 of 2015 by Hon’ble Supreme Court. 6. We have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant employee was appointed as “Badli Worker” in the year 1989. We have also considered the fact that there was settlement between the Workman Union and the Employer. Clause–20 of the settlement between the Workman Union and the Employer dated 21.12.1989 reads as under : “In reference to the representation made to delete the provision of the section 29 of the settlement dated 23/11/1984 and implement the provision of section 43 of the settlement dated 22/10/1964 it is determined that after preparing the Division wise list of the selected employees they will be given temporary/ daily wager appointment against the permanent posts in the division/unit, and if such appointed temporary/daily wager has worked continuously for 180 days including the weekly holiday/paid holiday and authorize leave then they will be taken on time scale. This provision will not be applicable to the employees on work charge working in the Civil Engineering Department and such appointed temporary/daily wager has worked continuously for 180 days including the weekly holiday/paid holiday and authorized leave then they will be taken in time scale and they will be entitled to all benefits available to time scale employees. The absence due to authorized leave for the above purpose will not be considered break and these days will not be considered for 180 days service. As per permission of S.T.T. 1981, if the recruitment of the staff has been done as a temporary or badli kamdar then after completion of their 180 days of service on the permitted vacancies they would be taken on time scale serially. As per permission of S.T.T. 1981, if the recruitment of the staff has been done as a temporary or badli kamdar then after completion of their 180 days of service on the permitted vacancies they would be taken on time scale serially. Such workers will be granted all benefits as per the Rules along with the notional increment with effect from 1.8.87 and there will not be any recoveries made from them nor there will be any arrears paid. The workmen taken into service are not required during the monsoon, therefore they can be retrenched as per the requirement and after the monsoon if their services are required then again as per seniority they will be taken in time scale. If there is any permanent post vacant then the appointment of the administrative staff will be made on time scale.” 7. Clause-20 of the Settlement has been dealt with exhaustively by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ghanshyamsinh Pratapsinh Parmar Vs. Divisional Controller passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1185 of 2020 and upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court the order dated 07.03.2018 in Civil Appeal No. 2556-2592 of 2018. In this case, it is also a question of granting time scale on completion of 180 days, which has not been granted in favour of the employee. The Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Ghanshyamsinh Pratapsinh Parmar (Supra), has also dealt with the delay and laches on the part of the workman. As far as the submission made by Mr. Brahmabhatt, learned advocate for the appellant, about the so-called difference in the case of present appellant is concerned, we have gone through the cross-examination of Jayantibhai Bhikhabhai Sindhav at Exh. 14, in which, the answer given by Jayantibhai is of general in nature. There is no specific question put to this witness that the appellant was taken in a sanctioned post and, therefore, it cannot be said that the case, which has been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, is different than the case on hand. Apart from this aspect, it is an undisputed fact that present appellant had neither filed any application before learned Tribunal to call for any details nor any question has been put to the witness about the seniority list prepared by the Corporation. Apart from this aspect, it is an undisputed fact that present appellant had neither filed any application before learned Tribunal to call for any details nor any question has been put to the witness about the seniority list prepared by the Corporation. Therefore, in our opinion, the case is at par with those employees whose case is decided against the appellant. Hence, we do not find any merits in the appeal. Accordingly, present appeal is dismissed.