JUDGMENT : 1. RULE. Learned Advocate Mr.Yogen Pandya waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondents. 2. These two petitions are arising out of the same facts and are raising identical issues and hence, at the request of learned Advocates for the parties, both these petitions are taken up for joint hearing and final disposal. 3. These petitions are filed against award dated 29.07.2016 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Reference (IT) NO.115 of 2001. By the impugned award, directions are issued to the petitioner-Corporation to treat the respondents-workmen as permanent with effect from the date of their respective appointments. The reference was made for following dispute:- “Whether workmen referred at Sr. No.1 to 6 of the Annexure-1 should be given work at Kotarpur Water Works considered them permanent from the date of joining their work and whether they should be posted back at Kotarpur as they are shifted from Kotarpur to any other place or if they are shifted to any other place, whether Conveyance Allowance of Rs.150/- should be paid to them from that date or not.” 4. The reference was made in connection with six individual-workmen, out of which four workmen have not pressed for the reference as they were accommodated to their satisfaction by the petitioner-Corporation whereas respondent Nos.1 and 2 continued to prosecute the reference. 5. The short controversy is for treating the respondent-workmen as permanent employees with the petitioner-Corporation in view of appointments made through a special channel. For the water works project at Kotarpur, land was required to be acquired and as a special case, families, which stood to loose their lands for the project, one adult member of each family whose land was acquired, was promised with employment with the petitioner- Corporation in the water works department at Kotarpur project. The dispute was raised as indicated hereinabove when the workmen were sought to be transferred from Kotarpur Water Project to other place under the employment of the petitioner- Corporation and it was prayed for not to terminate services of the respondents-workmen or to transfer them to any other place. It was also claimed that in case, the respondents-workmen are transferred then they be paid allowance at the rate of Rs.150/-. It was also claimed that in case, the respondents-workmen are transferred then they be paid allowance at the rate of Rs.150/-. The reference was withdrawn by four workmen out of total six workmen by filing pursis at Exh.50 and that demand of the workmen from not to transfer to place other than Kotarpur Water Works was declined and so was demand of allowance of Rs.150/-. 6. Learned Advocate for the petitioner-Corporation has primarily argued that the Corporation had framed the scheme as per the various decisions of the Supreme Court for absorbing daily wagers and accordingly, daily wagers, who had completed five years of service/900 days, were ordered to be absorbed and accordingly, four of the workmen, who had raised industrial dispute, had accepted absorption and benefits under the scheme. It is submitted that as there was no indefeasible right in favour of the respondents-workmen, they ought to have accepted the benefits under the scheme. Their services not being as per the selection process, must be treated as per the scheme. 6.1 Learned Advocate for the petitioner-Corporation submitted that the respondents-workmen had raised the claim belatedly and therefore, the impugned award, directing to treat the respondents-workmen as permanent from the date of their initial appointments, would amount to giving them benefits for a period even before the industrial dispute was raised and this period is almost of ten years. It is submitted that the appointments of the respondents were purely dependent upon nature of work available at Kotarpur Water Works and was for limited period. Learned Advocate drew attention of this Court to initial letter of appointment to indicate that the appointment was for period of twelve months and the same had started by the resolution of the committee to offer appointment for limited period of twelve months. 6.2 It is submitted that the Labour Court has erroneously issued directions to give them appointments as permanent employees as there was no sanctioned set up in the petitioner- Corporation to give appointment on permanent basis. 6.3 It is submitted that the only scheme by which a daily wager could be absorbed was the scheme which was framed and approved by the Courts and it was one time scheme where the respondents-workmen ought to have accepted the benefit. Having failed to do so, there is no other mode by which the Corporation can offer employment. 7. 6.3 It is submitted that the only scheme by which a daily wager could be absorbed was the scheme which was framed and approved by the Courts and it was one time scheme where the respondents-workmen ought to have accepted the benefit. Having failed to do so, there is no other mode by which the Corporation can offer employment. 7. As against this, learned Advocate for the respondents-workmen submitted that the case of the respondents-workmen cannot be equated with the case of daily wagers who would be engaged in service in regular or irregular manner at the whims of the officers of the Corporation. It is submitted that the appointments were on the basis of firm agreement backed with resolution of the Corporation to accept one adult individual from the family of land loosers for the purpose of Kotarpur Water Project, which was a project in public interest. 7.1 Learned Advocate for the respondents-workmen drew attention of this Court to the documents which were exhibited before the Labour Court, particularly Exh.88, which are notings on the proposal which would indicate that intention of the Corporation from inception was to offer permanent employment in a grade as per the requirement and educational qualification of the individual. Therefore, from the beginning itself, the respondents-workmen were treated to be employees in a particular grade and have been paid salary as such. 7.2 It is submitted that attempt on the part of the petitioner-Corporation to treat the respondents as daily wagers and consider their appointments on the basis of one time scheme framed for absorption on the basis of longevity of service rendered, i.e. 5 years/900 days, will have no application in the special facts of this case. 8. Having considered rival submissions of learned Advocates for the parties and having perused documents on record, it appears that it is a case where the Corporation organized water project in the year 1983-1984 at Kotarpur. Discussion was held with the landlords to acquire 10000 Sq. Mts. area of land out of the Survey Numbers of Kotarpur. The settlement agreement between the B.E.T.P. of the Corporation and Additional C.E. (W.W.) was executed on 31/03/1983. Condition no.1 to 5 of the said settlement were referred in the said document of settlement. Discussion was held with the landlords to acquire 10000 Sq. Mts. area of land out of the Survey Numbers of Kotarpur. The settlement agreement between the B.E.T.P. of the Corporation and Additional C.E. (W.W.) was executed on 31/03/1983. Condition no.1 to 5 of the said settlement were referred in the said document of settlement. Pursuant to the said settlement to acquire land of total twelve farmers, it was agreed that one adult person from the family of each land holder shall be given the job at Kotarpur Water Project. 9. The agreement was executed on 31/03/1983 and on this basis, the Corporation wrote a Letter on 07/05/1983 to the Standing Committee as well as General Board for the same. Below the said letter dated 07/05/1983 of the Corporation, the Standing Committee by passing Resolution No.504 on 16/05/1983 and granted its approval and on the basis of the same, the General Board of the Corporation, by passing Resolution No.364 dated 05/07/1983, granted its approval. Thus, it was agreed to give the job on permanent basis to a family person of the farmer, whose land is acquired for Kotarpur Water Project. According to the said resolution, the labour workers have been given jobs in the Corporation for the Kotarpur Project. Thus, the resolution is passed to give the job on permanent basis to a family person of the farmer, whose land is acquired for Kotarpur Water Project and such agreement has been executed between the Corporation and the farmers. Despite that, taking disadvantage of illiteracy of the land holders, the Corporation by passing resolution willingly and illegally to employ such persons as daily wager and hired them as daily wagers and watchmen. It was agreed that all these persons shall be employed at Kotarpur Water Project and they shall be kept at Kotarpur only so that they can look after the remaining lands besides service and it was agreed to consider them nontransferable. 10. It appears that the dispute arose when the respondents were sought to be transferred from Kotarpur Water Works Project to some other place and apprehending that in case, transferred is opposed, the respondents-workmen may lose their jobs, industrial dispute was filed. As recorded earlier, some of the workmen, accepting absorption as per the scheme, have withdrawn their reference and therefore, insofar as those workmen, viz. As recorded earlier, some of the workmen, accepting absorption as per the scheme, have withdrawn their reference and therefore, insofar as those workmen, viz. Melaji Kalaji Thakore, Hathaji Chhanaji Thakore, Dahyaji Chaturji Thakore, and Ranchhodji Motiji Thakore, the award in any terms would not be applicable. 11. The evidence on record in the form of documents supplied by the petitioner-Corporation under the provisions of the Right to Information Act (Exhs.87 and 88) being notings made over the period by the officers would go on to indicate that against acquisition of the land for the purpose of Kotarpur Water Works Project, which was in public interest, lands of 12 agriculturists were acquired. It was against such acquisition, over and above compensation paid, it was the decision of the Corporation to give appointment to one adult individual in the families who are to lose their lands to acquisition proceedings. 12. The Court has perused Exh.84, which appears to be handwritten agreement signed by the land loosers on one hand on 31.03.1983 in presence of responsible officers of the petitioner- Corporation, where it was clearly stipulated that on account of acquisition of huge tracts of land from the families of the land loosers, one adult person from each family would be given employment. A combined reading of Exhs.84 and 88 leaves no doubt about intention of the petitioner-Corporation to appoint these workmen in lieu of their loosing their agricultural lands and the documents on record would indicate that each of them have been appointed against grade in the year 1990 and 1994 respectively. The attempt on the part of the petitioner-Corporation in relying upon the resolution restricting appointment for a period of twelve months, does not appear to be in consonance with the intention of the petitioner-Corporation at the time of acquiring huge tracts of land from the families of the respondents. It would be appropriate to refer to resolution No.440 dated 23.06.1994 (Exh.65), wherein it was resolved that the members of agriculturists’ families be given appointments as permanent employees and be placed at the lowest of law grade as daily wagers. 13. With regard to submission of learned Advocate for the petitioner-Corporation regarding one time scheme which was approved by this Court in its decision in case of Parmar Karsanbhai Raghubhai & Ors. Vs. 13. With regard to submission of learned Advocate for the petitioner-Corporation regarding one time scheme which was approved by this Court in its decision in case of Parmar Karsanbhai Raghubhai & Ors. Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation & Ors., reported in 2005 (2) GLR, 946, it would be appropriate to mention that such was the scheme which was covering those individual workmen/daily wagers who were working with the respondent-Corporation for long time and were not being given their legal dues. This judgment approved settlement arrived at where the Corporation took a pre-active stand of settling the issue as one time scheme and in the opinion of the Court, case of the respondents-workmen cannot be equated to those covered under the scheme framed by the Corporation. 14. The Court may observe a distinguishing factor in Special Civil Application No.15392 of 2017 that appointment given to the respondent-workman was as Class-III employee. This appointment is also required to be maintained as the same was in consonance with the agreement entered into as referred to hereinabove with the families of land loosers. The respondent was initially also given appointment in Class-III cadre-Non-technical Supervisor and was therefore justifiably continued as such in the impugned award. 15. The Court is therefore of the view that the Industrial Tribunal was justified in allowing the reference. The Court does not find any illegality or perversity to interfere with the award of the Industrial Tribunal. The Court also does not find any jurisdictional error. The petitions therefore stand dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.