JUDGMENT : 1. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constituting of India, in which, the petitioner has prayed that the award dated 09.01.2019 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot in Reference (IT) No.23/2003 be quashed and set aside. 2. Heard learned advocate, Mr. D.G. Chauhan for the petitioner and learned advocate, Mr. T.R. Mishra for the respondent nos.1 to 3. 3. Learned advocate, Mr. Chauhan appearing for the petitioner has mainly submitted that the petitioner is a Body Corporate established and constituted under the provision of Section 3 of the Gujarat Agricultural Universities Act, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short) for the State of Gujarat, which is an educational institute fully aided by the State Government. It is submitted that all the regular/ permanent employees are being selected and appointed in accordance with Recruitment Rules after following due procedure of selection on sanctioned vacant posts and the daily wagers do not hold any post. It is contended that the respondent no.1 was engaged on 07.12.1994 as Laboratory Boy on daily wage basis, whereas the respondent nos.2 and 3 were engaged as Sweepers purely on temporary basis and are being paid minimum wages under the Minimum Wages Act. At this stage, it is submitted that the respondents have raised industrial dispute before the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot, which has been numbered as Reference (IT) No.23/2003 claiming permanency in service from the date of completion of 240 days with all benefits payable to permanent employees and also claimed arrears. It is submitted that the respondents filed statement of claim, Exh.3 before the Industrial Tribunal inter alia stating that the respondents are working since long and they are discharging their duties of permanent nature. It is also contended that they are continuously working for more than 10 years with 240 days continuous service in each year and yet they have not been made permanent and, hence, the said act of the petitioner amounts to unfair labour practice. It is also contended that they are continuously working for more than 10 years with 240 days continuous service in each year and yet they have not been made permanent and, hence, the said act of the petitioner amounts to unfair labour practice. It is contended that the petitioner filed its written statement, Exh.19 and, thereafter, parties led oral as well as documentary evidence before the Industrial Court and after considering the material placed before the Industrial Tribunal, the Tribunal passed impugned award, by which, the petitioner is directed to treat the respondents as permanent employees from the date of Reference and grant grade pay, dearness allowances and other allowances from the date of award i.e. 09.01.2019. It is also observed that the benefit of permanency shall be treated as notional and no arrears are to be paid till the award become enforceable. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition challenging the said award. 4. Learned advocate, Mr. Chauhan has assailed the impugned award mainly by contending that the respondents were engaged as daily rated unskilled labour purely on temporary and adhoc basis without following due process of selection and not as per the Recruitment Rules and, therefore, the respondents are not entitled for regularization and pay scale as claimed by them. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to travel beyond the terms of the Reference and the Tribunal cannot enlarge the scope of the Reference nor could deviate therefrom. Learned advocate at this stage would further submit that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to grant permanent status to the respondents on their respective post and to grant pay scale dehors the Recruitment Rules. It is submitted that the Tribunal has not properly considered the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the petitioner. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error by not considering the fact that unless the post is sanctioned by the State Government and is vacant, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to direct the petitioner to create post and regularization of services of the daily wagers. 5. Learned advocate, Mr. Chauhan has placed reliance upon the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, (1) the judgment in case of Gujarat Agricultural University Vs. Rathod Labhu Bechar & Ors., reported in (2001) 3 SCC 574 ; (2) the judgment in case of Union of India Vs. 5. Learned advocate, Mr. Chauhan has placed reliance upon the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, (1) the judgment in case of Gujarat Agricultural University Vs. Rathod Labhu Bechar & Ors., reported in (2001) 3 SCC 574 ; (2) the judgment in case of Union of India Vs. Chajju Ram (dead) by Lrs. & Ors., reported in (2003) 5 SCC 568 ; (3) the judgment in case of Amreli Municipality Vs. Gujarat Pradesh Municipal employees Union, reported in 2004 (6) GLH 591; (4) the judgment in case of National Fertilizers Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Somvir Singh, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 493 ; (5) the judgment in case of Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., reported in (2007) 1 SCC 408 ; (6) the judgment in case of Chandra Shekhar Azad Krishi Evam Prodyogiki Vishwavidyalaya Vs. United Trade Congress & Anr., reported in (2008) 2 SCC 552 ; 6. Referring to the above decisions and making above submissions, it is urged that the impugned award be quashed and set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned advocate, Mr. Mishra appearing for the respondents has opposed this petition and mainly contended that the Tribunal has not committed any error while passing impugned award and in fact, the Tribunal is having jurisdiction under third schedule of the Industrial Act. It is further submitted that in the dispute referred by the appropriate Government, the petitioner participated, however, not raised any grievances and the order of Reference is not challenged by the petitioner by filing separate petition and, therefore at this stage, it is not open for the petitioner to contend that the Tribunal is not having any jurisdiction to grant permanency to the respondents – workmen. Learned advocate, Mr. Mishra has referred to the deposition given by the witness of the petitioner and the crossexamination. It is further submitted that the decisions upon which reliance is placed by learned advocate for the petitioner are not applicable in the facts of the present case and in fact, the issue involved in the present petition is covered by the order dated 13.10.2017 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.17982/2016, copy of said order is placed on record. It is submitted that in identical matter, when similar type of contentions were raised, this Court has not entertained the said petition. It is submitted that in identical matter, when similar type of contentions were raised, this Court has not entertained the said petition. It is submitted that against the said order passed by the learned Single Judge, Letters Patent Appeal No.2137/2017 was filed before the Division Bench of this Court and the Division Bench of this Court, by an order dated 22.06.2021, rejected the said appeal, copy of said order is placed on record. At this stage, learned advocate further submitted that in similar type of case Vice Chancellor Anand Agriculture University Vs. Kanubhai Nanubhai Vaghela & Anr., recently decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4443/2021, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed the Appeal filed by the concerned Agricultural University. Learned advocate, therefore, urged that when the issue in the present petition is squarely covered by the aforesaid orders, this Court may not entertain the present petition. 8. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material placed on record, it is revealed that the respondents herein raised industrial dispute, which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, however, the order of Reference was not challenged by the petitioner. Schedule of the Reference states as to whether on completion of 240 days from the date of appointment, the workmen should be paid the amount of grade pay after making them permanent or not?. 9. Before the Industrial Tribunal, the statement of claim was filed at Exh.3, whereas the petitioner filed written statement at Exh.19. Thereafter, the parties led oral as well as documentary evidence and after considering the same, the Tribunal passed impugned award, by which, direction is given to the petitioner – University to treat the respondents as permanent employee from the date of Reference and to grant grade pay, dearness allowances and other allowances from the date of the award. It is also observed that the benefits of permanency shall be treated as notional and no arrears are to be paid till the award become enforceable. 10. However, the main contention taken by learned advocate appearing for the petitioner is that the respondents were appointed as daily rated unskilled labour purely on temporary and adhoc basis without following due process of selection and not as per the Recruitment Rules and, therefore, it was not open for the Tribunal to pass the impugned award. 10. However, the main contention taken by learned advocate appearing for the petitioner is that the respondents were appointed as daily rated unskilled labour purely on temporary and adhoc basis without following due process of selection and not as per the Recruitment Rules and, therefore, it was not open for the Tribunal to pass the impugned award. It is also the case of the petitioner that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to create post and give direction to the petitioner to regularize the services of the respondents. 11. At this stage, this Court would like to refer to the decisions upon which reliance has been placed by learned advocate for the petitioners. 11.1 In the judgment in case of Gujarat Agricultural University (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in Para No.10 as under, “10. We heard learned counsel for the parties at length and considered the objections of the respondents with respect to the proposed scheme for the regularisation of daily rated workers. The proposed scheme is reproduced below: Scheme for regularisation of daily-rated labourers of the Gujarat Agricultural Unviersity. 1. Daily-wager workers, whether skilled, semiskilled or unskilled, who have completed 10 years or more of continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar year as on 31.12.1999, shall be regularised as regular employees with effect from 1.1.2000 and shall be put in the time scale of pay applicable to the corresponding lowest grade in the University subject to the following terms and conditions: (a) The daily rated employees shall be eligible and must possess the prescribed qualifications for the post at the time of their appointment on daily rated basis. (b) Daily-wager employees shall be regularised in a phased manner to the extent of available regular sanctioned posts/vacancies on the date of regularisation and on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability including physical fitness. (C) The work and conduct of such employees should have been of over all good category and satisfactory and no disciplinary proceedings are pending against them. (d) The regularisation will be against the posts/ vacancies of the relevant categories only. 2. (C) The work and conduct of such employees should have been of over all good category and satisfactory and no disciplinary proceedings are pending against them. (d) The regularisation will be against the posts/ vacancies of the relevant categories only. 2. Daily workers, whether skilled semi- skilled or unskilled, who have completed 10 years of continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar year as on 31.12.1999 but could not be regularised shall be treated as monthly rated employees w.e.f. 1.1.2000 in the fixed pay without allowances as per the following formula Prepared by University: Fixed pay Daily rate prescribed by 26+ Rs.500 the Government fromtime to time for skilled, semiskilled, unskilled workers as the case may be They would be entitled to an annual increment of Rs. 15/-, Rs. 20/- and Rs. 25/- respectively for unskilled, semi-skilled and skilled workers till their services are regularised as per para-1. 3. Daily-wager whether skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled who have not completed 10 years of service with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar year shall be paid daily wage at the rates prescribed by the Government of Gujarat from time to time for daily wager employees falling in Class III and Class IV. 4. The seniority of the daily rates Class III and IV employees so regularised vis-à-vis Class III and IV employees appointed on regular basis shall be determined w.e.f. 1.1.2000. The inter se seniority of such daily rate Class III & IV employees shall be determined in accordance with the date of joining the post on daily rated basis. If the date of joining the post(s), on daily rated basis by such daily rated employees was the same, then the elder employee shall rank senior to an employee younger in age. If the date of joining of the directly recruited regular employees and the date of regularised employees as per this scheme is the same, the direct recruit shall be senior.” 11.2 In the judgment in case of Union of India (supra), this Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in Paragraph No.23 as under, “23. It is now well-settled that a decision is an authority for what it decides and not what can logically be deduced therefrom. It is now well-settled that a decision is an authority for what it decides and not what can logically be deduced therefrom. It is equally well-settled that a little difference in facts or additional facts may lead to a different conclusion.” 11.3 In the judgment in case of Amreli Municipality (supra), this Court has observed in Paragraph Nos.12.1 and 12.1.2 as under, “12.1 After considering the decisions cited before us, the following principles emerge : (A) No regularisation or permanency can be effected de hors the statutory provisions or the guidelines. (B) Long service put in by the workmen itself may not be a ground to regularise services of ad hoc/temporary workmen against the sanctioned set-up without following statutory procedure of recruitment. At the most, Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal can issue direction for consideration of absorption subject to availability of posts on the establishment. (C) To avoid nepotism and corruption, no back-door entry in service; (D) Financial capacity of the local body to have additional burden is a relevant consideration to be kept in mind while ordering regularisation or absorption. 12.1.2 The Apex Court, in no uncertain terms, ruled that the Labour Court/ Industrial Tribunal can neither regularise services of a workman nor grant permanency when his initial appointment itself is de hors the rules or not on the sanctioned post and has depricated orders of the High Court/Labour Courts/ Tribunals directing to regularise services of illegally recruited persons and has given guidelines. We are not impressed by the submission advanced on behalf of the workmen that the orders were passed in petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, such orders are not applicable in the present case in deciding the controversy. The Labour Courts/ Industrial Tribunals are required to pass orders consistent with the law laid down by the Higher Courts. Needless to say that the exercise of wide powers by Labour Court/ Tribunal is always subject to or governed by the law laid down by the Higher Courts.” 11.4 In the judgment in case of National Fertilizers Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Somvir Singh, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 493 ; “13. The Respondents herein were appointed only on applications made by them. Admittedly, no advertisement was issued in a newspaper nor the employment exchange was notified as regard existence of vacancies. Vs. Somvir Singh, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 493 ; “13. The Respondents herein were appointed only on applications made by them. Admittedly, no advertisement was issued in a newspaper nor the employment exchange was notified as regard existence of vacancies. It is now trite law that a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India is bound to comply with the constitutional requirements as adumbrated in Articles 14 and 16 thereof. When Recruitment Rules are made, the employer would be bound to comply with the same. Any appointment in violation of such Rules would render them as nullities. It is also well-settled that no recruitment should be permitted to be made through backdoor. 18. Regularisation, furthermore, is not a mode of appointment. If appointment is made without following the Rules, the same being a nullity the question of confirmation of an employee upon the expiry of the purported period of probation would not arise. The Constitution Bench in Umadevi (supra) made a detailed survey of the case laws operating in the field.” 11.5 In the judgment in case of Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in Paragraph Nos.31, 32 and 38 as under, “31. No doubt, there can be occasions when the State or its instrumentalities employ persons on temporary or daily wage basis in a contingency as additional hands without following the required procedure, but this does not confer any right on such persons to continue in service or get regular pay. Unless the appointments are made by following the rules, such appointees do not have any right to claim permanent absorption in the establishment. 32. A perusal of the record of the present case shows that the respondents were appointed on purely casual and daily rate basis without following the relevant service rules. Thus they had no right to the post at all, vide State of U.P. vs. Kaushal Kishore. 38. The respondents have not been able to point out any statutory rule on the basis of which their claim of continuation in service or payment of regular salary can be granted. It is well settled that unless there exists some rule no direction can be issued by the court for continuation in service or payment of regular salary to a casual, ad hoc, or daily rate employee. It is well settled that unless there exists some rule no direction can be issued by the court for continuation in service or payment of regular salary to a casual, ad hoc, or daily rate employee. Such directions are executive functions, and it is not appropriate for the court to encroach into the functions of another organ of the State. The courts must exercise judicial restraint in this connection. The tendency in some courts/tribunals to legislate or perform executive functions cannot be appreciated. Judicial activism in some extreme and exceptional situation can be justified, but resorting to it readily and frequently, as has lately been happening, is not only unconstitutional, it is also fraught with grave peril for the judiciary.” 11.6 In the judgment in case of Chandra Shekhar Azad Krishi Evam Prodyogiki Vishwavidyalaya (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in Paragraph No.13 as under, “13. In Executive Engineer, ZP Engg. Divn. And Another v. Digambara Rao and Others [ (2004) 8 SCC 262 ], it was held: 20. It may not be out of place to mention that completion of 240 days of continuous service in a year may not by itself be a ground for directing an order of regularisation. It is also not the case of the respondents that they were appointed in accordance with the extant rules. No direction for regularisation of their services, therefore, could be issued.” 12. From the aforesaid decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it can be said that when Recruitment Rules are made, the employer would be bound to comply with the same and any appointment in violation of such Rules would render them as nullities. Further, regularisation is not a mode of appointment. It is further observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that completion of 240 days of continuous service in a year may not by itself be a ground for directing an order of regularisation. This Court has considered the aforesaid decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, however, the aforesaid decisions would not render any assistance to the petitioner in the facts of the present case. In the present case, the concerned respondents are working with the petitioner since long and similarly situated other workmen were regularized by the petitioner. This Court has considered the aforesaid decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, however, the aforesaid decisions would not render any assistance to the petitioner in the facts of the present case. In the present case, the concerned respondents are working with the petitioner since long and similarly situated other workmen were regularized by the petitioner. Further, it is not open for the petitioner to contend that though they have violated the Recruitment Rules and made the appointment dehors the Rules, the benefit of said illegality committed by the petitioner cannot be given to the workmen. 13. In similar type of case, this Court while passing an order dated 13.10.20217 in Special Civil Application No.17982/2016 has recorded the submissions canvassed by learned advocate for the petitioner in Paragraph No.2, which read as under, “2. Mr. D.G. Chauhan, learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the Tribunal has committed error by giving direction to regularize the services of both the respondents - workmen, since they were not entitled to such a relief. It is submitted that the effect of direction of the Tribunal is creating supernumerary post and thus the Tribunal has examined the issue and given direction beyond the terms of Reference. It is submitted that the workmen were appointed purely on temporary basis and in any case, they could not be regularized as Agricultural Assistants, as directed by the Tribunal. It is submitted that the workmen had continued in service because of the interim order of the Tribunal and therefore the long continuance in service could not be considered as a factor in favour of the workmen. It is submitted that the impugned award be quashed and set aside. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has relied on the following decisions of the Supreme Court of India, in support of his submissions. (i) 1994 Supp (3) SCC 380 - Dr. Arundhati Ajit Pargaonkar vs. State of Maharashtra and Others. (ii) (2014) 4 SCC 769 - Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai vs. R. Govindaswamy and Others. (iii) (2007) 1 SCC 408 - Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.” 14. Thereafter, this Court has observed in Paragraph Nos.4.1 to 4.5 as under, “4.1 It is not in dispute that both the workmen are in employment with the petitioner since the year 1996. (iii) (2007) 1 SCC 408 - Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.” 14. Thereafter, this Court has observed in Paragraph Nos.4.1 to 4.5 as under, “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. 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). 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 HC-NIC Page 4 of 6 Created On Sat Oct 14 01:25:55 IST 2017 C/SCA/17982/2016 CAV ORDER 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 (3) 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.” 15. 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.” 15. The concerned petitioner herein challenged the said order by filing Letters Patent Appeal No.2137/2017 before the Division Bench and the Division Bench of this Court has observed in Paragraph Nos.8.5 to 8.9 as under, “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. 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. 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. 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.” 16. If the aforesaid observation made by the Division Bench of this Court is carefully seen, it is revealed that similar contention taken by the petitioner has not been accepted by the Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench has specifically observed that the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the case is one of unfair labour practice. It is also observed that 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. This Court is of the view that the issue involved in the present petition is squarely covered by the aforesaid order. 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Vice Chancellor Anand Agriculture University (supra), has observed in Paragraph Nos.4 and 7 to 12 as under, “4. The appeal filed by the university against the judgment of the High Court was disposed of by a judgment dated 18.01.2001 in Gujarat Agricultural University vs. Rathod Labhu Bechar & Ors., (2001) 3 SCC 574 It was argued on behalf of the appellant therein that it would not be possible for the university to grant permanency to all its employees working as daily-rated workers, who have completed 10 years of service as on 01.01.1993. Therefore, the scheme proposed granting permanent status to all such employees who have completed 10 years or more of continuous service with a minimum of 240 days as on 31.12.1999. It was further contended by the university that daily wagers are not entitled to get the minimum wages of Class IV employees of the State. 7. During the course of hearing, we were informed that the State Government passed a resolution on 01.04.2002 creating 890 posts for absorption of daily wagers in the university. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that the State Government dissolved the erstwhile Gujarat Agricultural University in 2004 and constituted four new agricultural universities. The petitioner is one of the four agricultural universities. There are 740 daily wagers working in the university. 8. The respondents/daily wagers in these appeals filed writ petitions in the High Court of Gujarat seeking regularization in accordance with the scheme floated by the State of Gujarat and approved by this Court. The contentions of the petitioners in the writ petitions was that they were working in Class IV posts and they were eligible to be absorbed in accordance with the scheme. Though a number of colleagues of the respondents/daily wagers were given the benefit of regularization of their services, they were denied the same. 9. Writ petitions filed by the daily wagers were allowed by a common judgment of the High Court of Gujarat on 13.03.2018. The appellant university was directed to treat the respondents as permanent employees from the date they have completed 10 years of service as daily wagers. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat affirming the direction of the learned single judge to regularize the services of respondents/daily wagers. 10. At the time of issuance of notice, we were informed by the learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellant that the benefits given to the respondents by the judgment of the High Court will not be withdrawn. We make it clear that the regularization of the services of respondents shall not be disturbed. 11. We have heard Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel for the university and Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents. The main contention of the university is that after the judgment of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Umadevi and Ors. 11. We have heard Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel for the university and Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents. The main contention of the university is that after the judgment of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Umadevi and Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1 , the respondents are not entitled for regularization as there are no sanctioned posts available. Another submission made on behalf of the appellant is that the judgment of this Court dated 18.01.2001 in Gujarat Agricultural University (supra) does not survive after the judgment of this Court in Uma Devi. It is no doubt true that in Umadevi’s case, it has been held that regularization as a one-time measure can only be in respect of those who were irregularly appointed and have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned posts. However, in the instant case the respondents are covered by the judgment of this Court in Gujarat Agricultural University (supra). This Court approved the proposed scheme of the State of Gujarat and directed regularization of all those daily wagers who were eligible in accordance with the scheme phase-wise. The right to be regularized in accordance with the scheme continues till all the eligible daily-wagers are absorbed. Creation of additional posts for absorption was staggered by this Court permitting the appellant and the State of Gujarat to implement the scheme phase-wise. We are not impressed with the submissions made on behalf of the university that the judgment of this Court in Umadevi’s case overruled the judgment in Gujarat Agricultural University (supra). The judgment of this Court in Gujarat Agricultural University (supra) inter partes has become final and is binding on the university. Even according to Para 54 of Uma Devi’s case, any judgment which is contrary to the principles settled in Umadevi shall be denuded of status as precedent. This observation at Para 54 in Umadevi’s case does not absolve the university of its duty to comply with the directions of this Court in Gujarat Agricultural University (supra). 12. It was brought to the notice of this Court by Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel for the university that 890 posts were created coterminous with the services of those daily wagers who have been absorbed in those posts. 12. It was brought to the notice of this Court by Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel for the university that 890 posts were created coterminous with the services of those daily wagers who have been absorbed in those posts. He made a valiant effort to impress upon this Court that no further posts have been created and therefore, the remaining daily wagers cannot claim regularization of their services. Creation of 890 posts is by way of implementation of the directions given by this Court in Gujarat Agricultural University (supra) at the first stage. There is no ambiguity in the directions given by this Court in Gujarat Agricultural University (supra) that the obligation on the part of the university to implement the scheme by regularizing all the eligible daily wagers continued.” 18. Keeping in view the aforesaid decision, if the facts of the present case as discussed hereinabove, are carefully examined, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal has not committed any error while passing impugned award and granting service benefits to the respondents – workmen and, therefore, no interference is required while exercising power under Article 227 of the Constituting of India. 19. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Notice is discharged.