ORDER : 1. Heard Mr.Dipak Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.H.S.Munshaw, learned advocate for the respondents. 2. Challenge in this petition is to the award dated 04.04.2019 passed by the Labour Court, dahod in Reference (LCD) No. 10 of 2002. By the impugned award, the Labour Court rejected the reference of the petitioner – Union. Assailing the award of the Labour Court rejecting the reference in not extending the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 for the concerned employees, namely, Bharubhai Parsingbhai Patel and Laduben Manabhai who were serving as a Watchman and Water Server respectively, Mr.Dipak Dave, learned counsel for the petitioners, extensively refering to the award of the Labour Court would indicate that for both, Bharubhai Parsingbhai Patel and Laduben Manabhai, there was an evidence on record to suggest that both were working continuously and uninterruptedly for over 20 years and despite a finding in favour of the concerned employees, especially in the case of Bharubhai Parsingbhai Patel, the Labour Court has denied the benefits of the Resolution dated 17.10.1988. 2.1 Inviting the Court’s attention to the findings arrived at by the Labour Court and the relevant discussion, Mr.Dave, learned advocate for the petitioners would submit that it has come on record of the Labour Court that as far as Bharubhai Parsingbhai Patel is concerned, a positive finding was recorded by the Labour Court that he had completed 240 days in each year of service, that on completion of five years he was paid the basic pay of Rs.750/- and therefore entitled to the benefits of the Resolution dated 17.10.1988. However, the Labour Court stopped show of granting that benefit without assigning any reasons whatsoever. 2.2 As far as Labuben Manabhai is concerned, Mr.Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the observations of the Labour Court that she was a part timer and the finding accordingly was without evidence or, in fact perverse inasmuch as, it was evident from the cross examination of the employer that she was working in the office on a full time basis which would open at 7 in the morning and close at 7 in the evening and all the employees working in the office were remaining present till the office hours ended. The evidence was read also to submit that it was undisputed that apart from Bharubhai Parsingbhai Patel, Laduben Manabhai, though termed as a part time employee was engaged full time. 2.3 Reliance was placed on an oral order dated 12.09.2014 passed in Special Civil Application No. 8468 of 2014, wherein, in Mr.Dave’s submission, facts were akin to those of the water server Laduben Manabhai. Mr.Dave, learned advocate, would invite the Court’s attention to the relevant paragraphs of the order in support of his submission that despite being branded as a part time employee, she was a full time employee and was entitled to the benefits of the Resolution dated 17.10.1988. 3. Mr.H.S.Munshaw, learned counsel for the respondents, would support the findings of the award. He would submit that the Labour Court committed no error in rejecting the reference. Reading the terms of the reference, Mr.Munshaw, learned advocate, would submit that there was no demand for extension of the benefits of the Resolution dated 17.10.1988. The reference was for permanency and for regular pay-scale, which, considering the evidence on record, the Labour Court rightly rejected. 3.1 Mr.Munshaw, learned advocate, would submit that if the witness Bharubhai Parsingbhai Patel deposition is examined, he had categorically stated that as far as Laduben Manabhai is concerned, she was a part time employee getting Rs.1,350/- per month indicating that it was undisputed that she was a part time employee engaged only during the early hours of the office as a Water Server. The evidence of the employer on which Mr.Dave, learned advocate, would rely with regard to the working of the office, was in Mr.Munshaw’s submission read out of context. He would rely on the affidavit in reply filed in the petition indicating that as far as Bharubhai Parsingbhai Patel is concerned, it was clearly admitted that he had completed over 240 days in each year of service. He was working since 01.09.1982, though not on a permanent or sanctioned post that he was later paid fixed amount of Rs.750/- per month. 3.2 As far as Laduben Manabhai is concerned, no such benefits are claimed for and on her behalf the benefits be granted as she was a part timer. 4. He was working since 01.09.1982, though not on a permanent or sanctioned post that he was later paid fixed amount of Rs.750/- per month. 3.2 As far as Laduben Manabhai is concerned, no such benefits are claimed for and on her behalf the benefits be granted as she was a part timer. 4. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for the respective parties, perusal of the award of the Labour Court would indicate that a demand was raised before the Labour Court by the Union on behalf of two employees, namely, Bharubhai Parsingbhai Patel and Laduben Manabhai. Reading the reasonings of the Labour Court would indicate that as far as Bharubhai Parsingbhai Patel is concerned, the evidence on record and the findings of the Labour Court clearly established the fact of he being in employment since the year 1982 and a positive finding being recorded by the Labour Court that he was entitled to the benefits of the Resolution dated 17.10.1988. In no uncertain terms does the Labour Court records this finding that Bharubhai Parsingbhai Patel had completed 240 days in each year of service and based on this, he was entitled to the benefits of the Resolution dated 17.10.1988. 4.1 Having said so, without assigning any reasons, the Labour Court recorded a finding in favour of Bharubhai Parsingbhai Patel but in the operative portion of the order, rejected the demand. Perusal of the affidavit in reply filed by the respondent – District Agricultural Officer would also in no undertain term establish the case for Bharubhai Parsingbhai Patel to be granted the benefits of the Resolution dated 17.10.1988, inasmuch as, not only does the Labour Court but from the affidavit in reply it is clear that right from the date of his initial appointment, he has completed 240 days in each year since the initial date of appointment. Accordingly, the claim of Bharubhai Parsingbhai Patel for being extended the benefits of the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 has to be considered in his favour and the award of the Labour Court rejecting the reference to that extent needs to be modified with a direction that Bharubhai Parsingbhai Patel be considered and granted the benefits of the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 based on his service and he having completed 240 days right from his date of appointment. 5. 5. Next comes the question of Laduben Manabhai and her entitlement for the benefits of the Resolution dated 17.10.1988. Though an attempt has been made and it has come on record that Bharubhai Parsingbhai Patel on her behalf did concede that she was working as a part timer on a pay of Rs.1,350/- per month, the testimony of the employer before the Labour Court would indicate that the Office in which she was engaged as a Water Server worked full time and the employees were expected to and were attending the office for the entire schedule and the functions of the office. That she also would have worked continuously for a period of 240 days, is what appears to be case of Laduben Manabhai. 6. Considering the oral order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 8468 of 2014 dated 12.09.2014, though it was the agency which had approached this Court assailing the award of the Labour Court, the Court has granted the benefits of 17.10.1988 to a Water Server working under the District Rural Development Agency. As observed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, if there is an evidence on record to show that Laduben Manabhai had been working for over a period of six hours with the establishment, there is no reason for her not being extended the benefits of the Resolution of 17.10.1988. Para 8 of the observations made by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court deserve to be reproduced and are so reproduced as under: “8. There is additional dimension of this matter. The challenge of the employer is based on the misconception that on the Office Orders passed by it, the respondent was shown to have been working for a period of about 6 hours per day, though this might be continued for years and decades. Any employer, more particularly a public authority, cannot be heard to contend that work is there, but it is of six hours a day and the net effect thereof is that, for decades together the concerned workman is to be treated as a part timer, and as the consequence thereof, he can never be given pay-scale of the said post. Any employer, more particularly a public authority, cannot be heard to contend that work is there, but it is of six hours a day and the net effect thereof is that, for decades together the concerned workman is to be treated as a part timer, and as the consequence thereof, he can never be given pay-scale of the said post. Thus, to treat any workman for 6 hours on duty, and not for 8 hours, is less for the reasons that the requirement is for 6 hours, more an arrangement to deprive the workman of his legitimate dues. This circumstance, in no uncertain terms, would be an unfair labour practice and taking cognizance of it, the Government itself has adopted a policy as contained in Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, which was pressed into service by the respondent workman before the Labour Court. Independent of it, it was also the policy of the Government that on completion of three years of service, the cases of the part timers were to be considered for regularisation as a full timer daily wagers. This aspect is also considered by the Labour Court. Considering all these aspects, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that, the respondent was entitled to receive the benefits as per the policy of the Government dated 17.10.1988, on completion of five years of service as a daily wager. This Court does not find any illegality in the said finding or the direction issued by the Labour Court in that regard, and therefore no interference is required by this Court.” 7. In light of the evidence which is on record, it may not be in the fitness of things to extend the benefits of the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 on the same terms and conditions tested on the evidence on record to Laduben, however, at the same time, as recorded by this Court in para 8 above of the decision rendered on 12.09.2014, and in addition to the parameters laid down in the decision in the case of P.W.D. Employees Union vs. State of Gujarat ., reported in 2019 (15) SCC 248 ., the respondents are directed to consider the case of Laduben Manabhai in accordance with the provisions referred to hereinabove and in light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision of PWD Employees Union (supra). 7.1 As far as Laduben Manabhai is concerned, her case be examined within some time frame and an appropriate order in accordance with law be passed. 7.2 As far as Bharubhai Parsingbhai Patel is concerned, he shall be extended the benefits of regularisation within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 8 The award of the Labour Court is modified accordingly. Petition is allowed, to the above extent. Direct service is permitted.