JUDGMENT : 1. By way of this petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the award dated 29.08.2011, passed by the learned presiding Officer, labour Court, Junagadh in Reference Case No. 126 of 1999 passed below Exh.43, whereby labour Court while allowing the reference held the action of the petitioner-Corporation to retire respondent-workman on 31.10.1995 as illegal and further directing that the respondent-workman be treated to have retired from 31.10.1997 instead of 31.10.1995 and further directed to pay all the benefits to the respondent-workman including salary for a period of two years from 31.10.1995 to 31.10.1997. 2. Heard learned advocate Ms. Sejal Mandaviya for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Samir Gohil for the respondent-workman. 3. The facts arising to this petition are stated as under: 3.1 It is the case of the respondent-workman that the respondent-workman has joined as the Assistant Turner in erstwhile-Saurashtra State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter for short ‘SSRTC’) and the same was owned by the Saurashtra Government thereafter he was promoted to the post of Head Turner. At the time when he joined the service the retirement age prescribed by the Corporation was 60 years, however, subsequently upon creation of State of Gujarat when Gujarat State Road Transport (hereinafter for short ‘GSRTC’) was created the employees of SSRTC were absorbed in the GSRTC where the retirement age was 58 years. Though by Circular no. 139 the retirement age limit of the employees working in Saurashtra region of SSRTC and working in the workshop was decided to be 60 years, however, the petitioner was made to retire on completing 58 years on 31.10.1995 whereas he should have been retired on completion of 60 years on 31.10.1997 as the initial appointment of the workman was at SSRTC. Therefore, the petitioner was entitled to the benefits of Circular no. 139. 3.2 Earlier when the reference no. 126/1999 was preferred by the respondent-workman challenging the action of petitioner- Corporation to retire on completion of 58 years with effect from 31.10.1995. The labour Court has passed an award on 5.3.2003 and allowed the reference and directed to grant all the benefits from 31.10.1995 till 31.10.1997 as if the petitioner was continued in services. 126/1999 was preferred by the respondent-workman challenging the action of petitioner- Corporation to retire on completion of 58 years with effect from 31.10.1995. The labour Court has passed an award on 5.3.2003 and allowed the reference and directed to grant all the benefits from 31.10.1995 till 31.10.1997 as if the petitioner was continued in services. The said order was challenged by the petitioner Corporation by preferring SCA No. 667 of 2004 therein the matter was remanded back to the labour Court vide judgment and order dated 27.10.2010, this Court had directed and observed that it will be open for the parties to lead evidence to show what would have been the position, if the respondent would have been continued in SSRTC and would not have been absorbed in GSRTC. The parties were permitted to lead evidence before the labour Court and the labour Court was also directed to consider the aspect of delay as the reference was preferred in the year 1999, after the respondent-workman was made to retire in the year 1995. 3.3 The aforesaid judgment dated 27.10.2010, in Special Civil Application No. 667 of 2004 though is not on record the same was made available by the advocates for the parties during the course of arguments. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of remand the matter proceeded before the labour Court and the labour Court framed the issued and considered the question as to whether the respondent-workman can be said to be the employee of Saurashtra Government/SSRTC or GSTRC. The labour Court permitted the respondent–workman to file additional statement of claim to which petitioner-original respondent before the labour Court also filed written statement. However, in the award the labour Court is observed that the petitioner – Corporation did not produced any evidence after the matter was remanded back and was heard afresh nor any oral evidence was produced. Ultimately, after hearing the parties and taking into consideration of Circular No. 139 dated 27.01.1961, the labour Court held that action of the petitioner- Corporation of retiring the respondent-workman upon completion of age of 58 years on 31.10.1995, is illegal and accordingly directed that the petitioner, that respondent-workman is entitled to full years salary and all other benefits from 31.10.1995 till 31.10.1997. 3.4 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 29.08.2011 passed by the labour Court, Junagadh in reference Case no. 3.4 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 29.08.2011 passed by the labour Court, Junagadh in reference Case no. 126 of 1999, the petitioner-Corporation has challenged the aforesaid award by way of this petition. 3.5 Vide order dated 15.03.2012, this Court had issued RULE and granted ad-interim relief in favour of the petitioner on a condition that the petitioner shall deposit the entire amount as directed by the labour Court in this award with the registry of this Court within two months from the date of order is passed i.e. on 15.03.2012. Thereafter, vide order dated 08.05.2012, the Court observed that a sum of Rs. 2,14,236/- has been deposited by the petitioner on 19.04.2012, and ultimately, the ad- interim relief granted in favour of the petitioner was confirmed. Thereafter, the matter was heard finally today. 4. Learned advocate Ms. Sejal Mandavia submitted that their respondent-workman himself has stated that he was appointed on 04.03.1957, and that appointment order was on record before the labour Court and was exhibited. The aforesaid document would establish the fact that the applicant was employee of SSRTC and not of Saurashtra Government, whereas, Circular no. 139 which has been heavily relied upon respondent-workman was applicable only to the employees who are appointed by Saurashtra Government, therefore, the impugned award is erroneous. She further submitted that while allowing the reference, the labour Court has not decided the issue for which the matter was remanded back. She further submitted that though while remanding the matter back to the labour Court, this Court specifically directed the labour Court to take into consideration the fact that there was delay of 4 years in raising the dispute at the end of respondent-workman as he was retired in the year 1995 and whereas reference was made in the year 1999. The aforesaid aspect has not been considered by the labour Court and therefore, the impugned order is bad and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Samir Gohil appearing for the respondent-workman pointed out from the award that labour Court has considered all the materials that was placed before the labour Court. Labour Court has categorically observed that the petitioner-Corporation has not produced any evidence after the matter was remanded. No documentary or oral evidence was produced before the labor Court. Only the materials that was placed for consideration before the labour Court was Circular no. Labour Court has categorically observed that the petitioner-Corporation has not produced any evidence after the matter was remanded. No documentary or oral evidence was produced before the labor Court. Only the materials that was placed for consideration before the labour Court was Circular no. 139 dated 27.01.1961 and the recommendation made in respect of the aforesaid Circular. He submitted that the Circular dated 27.01.1961, nowhere provides that for availing the benefits of retirement age of 60 years a person must be appointed by the Saurashtra Government and not by the SSRTC. He further submitted that what is important to get the benefit of retirement age of 60 years is that a person must be on a permanent establishment and must be working in Saurashtra area of Corporation on the date on which Circular no. 139 was published i.e. on 29.01.1961. As the respondent-workman was fulfilling the aforesaid criteria and there is nothing contrary on record was produced by the petitioner- Corporation, the labour Court has rightly allowed the reference and issued directions which are already stated in the forgoing paragraphs. By making aforesaid submissions he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the materials available on record and also considered earlier judgment dated 27.10.2010, passed in SCA No. 667 of 2004, whereby the matter was remanded back to the labour Court. While remanding back the matter this Court categorically observed that it is open for the parties to lead evidence, however, the petitioner- Corporation did not produce any additional evidence after the matter was remanded back, no documentary or oral evidence was produced nor any evidence was led by the petitioner- Corporation. The labour Court has considered the entire controversy on the basis of Circular No. 139 dated 27.01.1961, the relevant portion of the said Circular is reproduced in the award and the same is reproduced here as well, which is as under: “10: AGE OF RETIREMENT : GR No. 139, DT 27.1.61” In the Saurashtra area of the Corporation, the existing permanent workman in the workshop who are allowed to retire at 60, according to the present practice, may be allowed to continue upto 60. This concession will, however, be personal to the existing permanent incumbents only and will not be extended to any other employee.” 7. This concession will, however, be personal to the existing permanent incumbents only and will not be extended to any other employee.” 7. The aforesaid Circular which is in respect of retirement age specifies that it would be applicable only to the existing permanent workman in the workshop in the Saurashtra area of Corporation to retire at the age of 60 years, which would indicate that it is applicable only to the workman in the Saurashtra area and those who are on permanent establishment as permanent workman i.e. as per Circular dated 27.01.1961. The Circular states that those persons who are entitled to have a retirement age of 60 years. The aforesaid being the language of the Circular the submission of learned advocate Ms. Mandavia that the date of appointment of the respondent workman was of the year 1957 and therefore since the SSRTC was created on 01.03.1956 and before that it was known as Saurashtra Government Department and therefore, the benefit of retirement age of 60 years would be available only to the employees who were appointed prior to creation of SSRTC and were appointed in Saurashtra Government only cannot be accepted. 7.1 The language of the aforesaid Circular is very clear wherein it is specifically stated that it would be applicable to the existing permanent workman and does not speak anything about Saurashtra Government or SSRTC. It only speaks about Saurashtra area of the Corporation. At the relevant point of time it was SSRTC and therefore whosoever working in SSRTC in Saurashtra area were permitted to retire at the age of 60 years. 7.2 Further, the labour Court has categorically observed that one employee namely Jeenabhai Dhanjibhai who was appointed on 25.09.1958, i.e., after the petitioner was appointed was also given the benefits of Circular no.139 by way of order of Competent Court. If a person who is appointed after the present petitioner and yet he has been considered positively for the benefit of Circular 139 by the Competent Court, and if the said order is implemented, in that case this Court is of the view that the respondent workman also should be given the same benefit. If a person who is appointed after the present petitioner and yet he has been considered positively for the benefit of Circular 139 by the Competent Court, and if the said order is implemented, in that case this Court is of the view that the respondent workman also should be given the same benefit. Further, the labour Court has also considered the aspect of delay, the labour Court has categorically observed that when industrial dispute was raised by the workman before the labour Commissioner, at that point of time or thereafter in response to the notice issued by the labour Commissioner, the petitioner did not raised any dispute in respect of delay. In absence of there being any pleading about delay, at the initial stage, it can be said that the petitioner has given up the plea about delay at the relevant point of time. 8. The labour Court has also observed the fact that though the respondent-workman has time and again made demands and the petitioner-Corporation has replied to the same the aspect of limitation would not come in way of respondent-workman. Though it is true that this Court while remanding the matter back to the labour Court has specifically directed the labour Court to consider the aspect of delay as well. 9. The aforesaid aspect has been highlighted by learned advocate Ms. Mandaviya and submitted that the delay aspect has not been considered by the labour Court. Though the labour Court has considered the aspect in its own way. Considering the fact that the petitioner attained the age of superannuation by completing the age of 58 years in 1995 which according to the petitioner should have been retired on 31.10.1997 the reference was also preferred in the year 1999. Considering the fact that today the age of the respondent-workman would be around 85 years. 10. Therefore now, if at this juncture, if the matter is remanded back once again for re-consideration on the aspect of delay that would not serve the end of justice. Further, the amount involved in the entire controversy is Rs.2,14,236/- as was recorded in the order dated 08.05.2012, by the Coordinate Bench. The aforesaid amount was directed to be invested in Fixed Deposit in any nationalised bank and the said amount is lying in the nationalised bank in form of Fixed Deposit since last 10 years. Further, the amount involved in the entire controversy is Rs.2,14,236/- as was recorded in the order dated 08.05.2012, by the Coordinate Bench. The aforesaid amount was directed to be invested in Fixed Deposit in any nationalised bank and the said amount is lying in the nationalised bank in form of Fixed Deposit since last 10 years. When the original amount is only Rs.2,14,236/- and the labour Court has not directed the petitioner Corporation to pay the salary of two years and other monetary benefits to the respondent-workman with some interest. The respondent-workman has already lost interest for a period from 1995 till 2012 the date on which the amount was deposited by the petitioner-Corporation. According to this Court though the aspect of delay has not been properly considered by the labour Court the monetary loss suffered by the petitioner as the amount which was direct to be paid by the petitioner within a period of 30 days was deposited in the year 2012, as no interest was awarded to the respondent-workman there is no need to go any further in the aspect of delay at this stage in the year 2022. 11. In view of above, for the reasons stated herein above, I do not see that labour Court has committed any illegality or the order passed by the labour Court is erroneous. 12. Hence, no interference by this Court is required. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Notice is discharged. No order as to cost. 13. Registry is directed to disburse the amount which are already lying in Fixed Deposit pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 08.05.2012, in favour of respondent-workman within a period of one month, by way of ECS. The learned advocate for the respondent is directed to provide bank details of the respondent workman within a period of 15 days. Direct service is permitted.