ORDER : NIRAL R. MEHTA, J. [1] As the facts are similar and the issues are identical in all the captioned Letters Patent Appeals, those were heard together and are being decided by this common order. [2] Heard learned Assistant Government Pleaders Mr. Krutik Parikh for the appellant – State and learned advocate Mr. P. C. Chaudhari for the respondent No.1 in all the captioned Letters Patent Appeals. [3] All the captioned Letters Patent Appeals Nos.137 of 2023, 138 of 2023 and 139 of 2023 arise out of the identical order dated 15th September 2021 passed by learned Single Judge in Special Civil Applications Nos.1769 of 2020, 1771 of 2020 and 1778 of 2020 respectively. [4] At the outset, it has been pointed out that an identical group of appeals being Letters Patent Appeal No.1557 of 2022 and allied appeals have been decided by the Coordinate Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 14th December 2022, wherein the Coordinate Division Bench, while dismissing the said group of appeals, upheld the judgment and order dated 5th November 2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in the respective writ petitions. [5] Learned advocates for the respective parties have candidly stated that present Letters Patent Appeals are also identical in nature and governed by the same facts of group of appeals being Letters Patent Appeal No.1557 of 2022 and allied appeals. [6] In view of the aforesaid statement being made, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems fit to refer and rely upon the relevant observations made in the order dated 14th December 2022 passed by the Coordinate Division Bench of this Court in group of appeals being Letters Appeal No.1557 of 2022 and allied appeals. It can be read as under: “8.0. We have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the award passed by the learned Tribunal as well as orders passed by the learned Single Judge. Considering the written statement filed before the Reference Court by the State Authorities, there is no contention raised by the State Authorities that the employees have not completed 240 days in any of the years, which it has claimed. It is true that some extract produced by the Authorities before the Tribunal suggest that in particular year concerned employees have not completed 240 days. It is true that some extract produced by the Authorities before the Tribunal suggest that in particular year concerned employees have not completed 240 days. However, if we examined the findings of the Tribunal with regard to issue no.5, it appears that the State Authorities have only examined one witness, however except his oral version, he has not produced any documentary evidence like attendance register or pay register, which shows the salary paid to each of the employees. 9.0. As far as judgment relied upon by Mr. Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader in the case of Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation and Others (supra) is concerned, the facts in the aforesaid case is totally different. In the aforesaid decision, the Corporation has produced other important document like xerox copy of the employment given for particular period since original was with the employee itself. In such circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in favour of the appellant whereas in the present case facts are different, therefore, the same would not be applicable in the present case. 10. When there is no specific contention raised by the State Authorities before the Tribunal about non-working of employee for 240 days in a particular year and if such facts have been deposed before the Tribunal, it was the duty of the State Authorities to produce the necessary documents to establish that the employees have not worked for 240 days. This aspect has also been considered by the learned Single Judge. The findings of the learned Single Judge recorded in para 19 to 27 reads as under: “19. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the materials on record, Labour Court has arrived at following finding of fact on the basis of oral and documentary evidence produced before it : i) That the petitioner was appointed as “Chowkidar” on 1st January, 1998 on a monthly salary of Rs. 1200/-. ii) Service of the petitioner was terminated from 18th September, 2002. iii) On the basis of details provided by respondent no.1 at Exh.19, wherein the number of days worked by the petitioner are mentioned in the presence register, Labour Court has found on perusal of such presence register that during the year 2001- 2002, the petitioner worked for 12 months and not for the rainy season as stated by the witness of the respondent no.1. iv) Labour Court has also found that respondent no. l is not declared as a seasonal institute by the Government and office of the Range Forest Officer works throughout the year. v) Respondent no.1 has not produced any documentary evidence to show that any salary slip or voucher was provided to the petitioner workman. vi) During the course of cross examination of the petitioner, respondent no.1 failed to get any information other than what is stated in the statement of claim that the petitioner worked for more than 240 days in each of the year of his service. 20. In view of the above findings of fact, Labour Court was justified in holding that there is a violation of provision of section 25F of the ID Act as no notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation was paid to the petitioner. The Labour Court also arrived at findings of fact that respondent no.1 failed to produce any documentary evidence to show that there were recruitment rules for employing the daily wager. 21. The Labour Court has therefore, come to the conclusion that the services of the petitioner were illegally terminated by respondent no.1. 22. The Labour Court has also found that during the year 2014, the petitioner was reinstated in service by respondent no.1 during the pendency of the reference, but instead of payment of minimum wages to the petitioner, respondent no.1 paid wages on the basis of piece rate. This fact is also stated by the petitioner in his affidavit at Exh.21 stating that as the petitioner opposed the payment of wages on the basis of piece rate, his service was discontinued with effect from 6th January, 2015. Therefore, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that there was a requirement of service of the petitioner by respondent no.1. Labour Court therefore, came to the conclusion that there is a breach of section 25H of the ID Act. 23. Labour Court after considering the decisions rendered by this Court in Special Civil Application No.17770/2014 and in Special Civil Application No.18763/2014 and Government Resolution came to the conclusion that the petitioner was also entitled to be reinstated in view of Government Resolution dated 17th October, 1988. 24. With regard to denial to award of back wages, Labour Court relied upon the cross examination of the petitioner at Exh.8 wherein he has admitted that he was doing some labour work. 24. With regard to denial to award of back wages, Labour Court relied upon the cross examination of the petitioner at Exh.8 wherein he has admitted that he was doing some labour work. Relying upon such evidence and in view of the following decisions, Labour Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to any back-wages considering the fact that respondent no.1 is Government and there is public money involved for payment of back wages: i) Decision of Supreme Court in case of M.P. State Electricity v. Smt. Zarina reported in 2003(98) FLR 595 . ii) Decision of Supreme Court in case of Kendria Vidyalaya v. S.P. Sharma reported in 2005 LLR 275. iii) Decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of Sagar v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court reported in 2006 LLR 549. iv) Decision of Supreme Court in case of General Manager Haryana Roadways v. Rudhansing reported in 2006 LLR 849. 25. Thus, the Labour Court has passed the impugned judgment and award on the findings of fact. In view of various judgments cited at bar on behalf of the petitioner as discussed here in above the petitioner was also entitled to the benefit of Government Resolution dated 17th October, 1988 in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in case of State of Gujarat and others v. PWD Employees Union and others (supra), wherein the Apex Court has held as under: 19. The main questions which arise for our consideration in these appeals are: (1) Whether the daily wage workers of Forest and Environment Department working for 5 to 30 years for works other than building and maintenance and repairing work are entitled to derive benefits of the scheme contained in the Resolution dated 17th October, 1988 issued by the State from Road and Building Department; (2) If so, whether the members of the respondent-employees Union working on daily wages for more than 5 to 30 years in the Forest and Environment Department of the State will be entitled for similar benefits of the scheme contained in the Resolution dated 17th October, 1988. 19. From a bare reading of the Resolution dated 17th October, 1988, the following facts emerge: (a) Labour and other Unions made representation to the Government making demands and issues relating to daily wage workers of different departments of the Government. 19. From a bare reading of the Resolution dated 17th October, 1988, the following facts emerge: (a) Labour and other Unions made representation to the Government making demands and issues relating to daily wage workers of different departments of the Government. (b) The State Government constituted a committee under the Chairmanship, Minister of Road and Building Department. (c) The Committee was constituted for studying (i) the wages of daily wage workers; and (ii) work related services and facilities provided to the daily wage workers who are engaged in the building maintenance and repairing work in different departments of the State. (d) The recommendations of the Committee were accepted and accordingly the State Government resolved to provide the benefits of the scheme contained in the Resolution 17th October, 1988. 20. The daily wage workers who were engaged in building maintenance and repairing work in different departments were already entitled for their work related facilities. Therefore, what we find is that the Committee has not limited the recommendation to the daily wage workers working in building maintenance and repairing work in different departments of the State. The State Government vide its Resolution dated 17th October, 1988 has not limited it to the daily wage workers working in building maintenance and repairing work. What we find is that the Resolution dated 17th October, 1988 is applicable to all the daily wage workers working in different departments of the State including Forest and Environment Department performing any nature of job including the work other than building maintenance and repairing work. The decision of the Full Bench of Gujarat High Court in Gujarat Forest Producers, Gatherers and Forest Workers Union(supra and the subsequent Resolution dated 22nd December, 1999 issued from Forest and Environment Department of the State, in our opinion are not sustainable, as the intent of Resolution dated 17th October, 1988 was not properly explained therein and, therefore, the aforesaid decision of Full Bench and Resolution dated 22nd December, 1999 cannot be made applicable to the daily wage workers of the Forest and Environment Department of the State of Gujarat. 21. 21. In view of the aforesaid observation, we find that the full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Gujarat Forest Producers, Gatherers and Forest Workers Union(supra) proceeded on erroneous premises to hold that the Resolution dated 17th October, 1988 is applicable only to the daily wage workers of Forest Department engaged in building maintenance and repairing work. The conclusions in the said judgment are not sustainable otherwise also. We have already noticed that the Resolution of the State Government dated 17th October, 1988 is not limited to any particular department, it applies to all the departments including Road and Building, Forest and Environment Department, Water Resources Department, etc. We have also noticed that the Committee headed by the Minister of Road and Building Department looked into the wages of daily wage workers and work related facilities provided to the daily wage workers engaged in building maintenance and repairing work in different departments, only for the purpose of its recommendations. The Committee has not limited the recommendations amongst the daily wage workers engaged in building maintenance and repairing work in different departments by its aforesaid Resolution. It is applicable to all daily wage workers including semi- skilled workers performing any nature of job, working in different departments of the State including the daily wage workers of the Forest Department performing work other than building maintenance and repairing work. 22. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench arise out of the final order and judgment dated 29th October, 2010 passed in SCA No.8647/2008 and connected matters. The said order has reached finality in absence of any challenge before the higher Court and hence became binding between the parties i.e. the appellant-State of Gujarat and the respondents-Employees Union. Therefore, none of the parties including appellants-State of Gujarat can rely on Full Bench decision in Gujarat Forest Producers, Gatherers and Forest Workers Union(supra) to scuttle the decision and direction given by the Gujarat High Court in SCA No.8647/2008 and connected matters. 23. The decisions in Uma Devi (supra) and A. Umarani (supra) were regarding the question concerning regularization of employees entered by back door method or those who were illegally appointed encouraging a political set up, in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 23. The decisions in Uma Devi (supra) and A. Umarani (supra) were regarding the question concerning regularization of employees entered by back door method or those who were illegally appointed encouraging a political set up, in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. We are of the opinion that both the aforesaid decisions are not applicable in the present case i.e. to the members of the respondent- Employees Union for the following reasons: (i) The Secretary, Forest and Environment Department of the State of Gujarat by his order dated 3rd May, 2008 held that initially the entry of the daily wagers do not suffer from any illegality or irregularity but is in consonance with the provisions of Minimum Wages Act. Therefore, the question of regularization by removing procedural defects does not arise. (ii) The Gujarat High Court by its judgment dated 29th October, 2010 passed in SCA No.8647 of 2008 while noticing the aforesaid stand taken by the State also held that the nature of work described in the order dated 3rd May, 2008 shows that the daily wageworkers are engaged in the work which is perennial in nature. (iii) The case of A.Uma Rani (supra) related to regularization of services of irregular appointees. In the said case this Court held that when appointments are made in contravention of mandatory provisions of the Act and statutory rules framed therein and in ignorance of essential qualifications, the same would be illegal and cannot be regularized by the State. 24. Thus, the principal question that falls to be considered in these appeals is whether in the facts and circumstances it will be desirable for the Court to direct the appellants to straightaway regularize the services of all the daily wage workers working for more than five years or the daily wage workers working for more than five years are entitled for some other relief. 25. As per scheme contained in Resolution dated 17th October, 1988 all the daily wage workers were not entitled for regularization or permanency in the services. As per the said Resolution the daily wagers are entitled to the following benefits: “(i) They are entitled to daily wages as per the prevailing Daily Wages. If there is presence of more than 240 days in first year, daily wagers are eligible for paid Sunday, medical allowance and national festival holidays. As per the said Resolution the daily wagers are entitled to the following benefits: “(i) They are entitled to daily wages as per the prevailing Daily Wages. If there is presence of more than 240 days in first year, daily wagers are eligible for paid Sunday, medical allowance and national festival holidays. (ii) Daily wagers and semi skilled workers who has service of more than five years and less than 10 years are entitled for fixed monthly salary along with dearness allowance as per prevailing standard, for his working days. Such daily wagers will get two optional leave in addition to 14 misc. leave, Sunday leave and national festival holidays. Such daily wagers will also be eligible for getting medical allowance and deduction of provident fund. (iii) Daily wagers and semi skilled workers who has service of more than ten years but less than 15 years are entitled to get minimum pay scale at par with skilled worker along with dearness allowance as per prevailing standard, for his working days. Moreover, such daily wagers will get two optional leave in addition to 14 misc. leave, Sunday leave and national festival holidays. He/she will be eligible for getting medical allowance and deduction of provident fund. (iv) Daily wagers and semi skilled workers who has service of more than 15 years will be considered as permanent worker and such semi skilled workers will get current pay scale of skilled worker along with dearness allowance, local city allowance and house rent allowance. They will get benefit as per the prevailing rules of gratuity, retired salary, general provident fund. Moreover, they will get two optional leave in addition to 14 misc. leave, 30 days earned leave, 20 days half pay leave, Sunday leave and national festival holidays. The daily wage workers and semi skilled who have completed more than 15 years of their service will get one increment, two increments for 20 years service and three increments for 25 years in the current pay scale of skilled workers and their salary will be fixed accordingly.” 26. The daily wage workers and semi skilled who have completed more than 15 years of their service will get one increment, two increments for 20 years service and three increments for 25 years in the current pay scale of skilled workers and their salary will be fixed accordingly.” 26. Considering, the facts and circumstances of the case, the finding of Gujarat High Court dated 29th October, 2010 in SCA No.8647/2008 and connected matters and the fact that the said judgment is binding between the parties, we are of the view that the appellants should be directed to grant the benefit of the scheme as contained in the Resolution dated 17th October, 1988 to all the daily wage workers of the Forest and Environment Department working for more than five years, providing them the benefits as per our finding at Paragraph 25 above. The appellants are directed accordingly. The judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 29th October, 2010 as affirmed by the Division Bench by its order dated 28th February, 2012 stands modified to the extent above. The benefit should be granted to the eligible daily wage workers of the Forest and Environment Department working for more than five years including those who are performing work other than building maintenance and repairing but they will be entitled for the consequential benefit w.e.f. 29th October, 2010 or subsequent date from which they are so eligible within four months from the date of receipt/production of the copy of this order. The appeals stand disposed of with the aforesaid observation and directions to the appellantState and its authorities. There shall be no separate orders as to costs. 26. In view of the above conspectus of law, Labour Court has rightly passed the award of reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service to his original post without backwages and so far as communication dated 6th November, 2017 is concerned, the same is contrary to the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, therefore, such communication is also quashed and set aside directing respondent no.1 to reinstate the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of writ of this order so as to comply with the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court. 27. 27. Decisions cited on behalf of the learned Assistant Government Pleader are not applicable to the facts of the case, as there is a categorical finding of fact arrived at by the Labour Court that the petitioner worked for more than 240 days in 12 calendar months preceding to the date of his termination from service as provided under section 25B of the ID Act in view of evidence produced at Exh.19 by respondent no.1 showing the working days of the petitioner with respondent no.1.” 11. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Hence, we do not find any merits in any of the Letters Patent Appeals. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all the Letters Patent Appeals stand dismissed. 12. In view of dismissal of Letters Patent Appeal, Civil Applications also stand dismissed.” [7] At this stage, it would also be apt to take into consideration the order dated 23rd January 2023 passed by this Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.39 of 2023. The relevant observations read as under: “6. The outweighing factor is that as stated above the Letters Patent Appeal against the very judgment and the order insofar it is related to the challenge and award by workman for the count of non grant of backwages came to be confirmed when Special Civil Application No.4193 of 2019 by workman was rejected. The impugned judgment and award was thus already considered for its legality though in cross petition. Therefore the present Letters Patent Appeal by the State has no legs to stand. Even otherwise the court has examined the merits of the aspects raised to be found of not worthy to tenable in facts and law.” [8] In view of the aforesaid, we are unable to take different view from the view taken by the Coordinate Division Bench as well as this Bench as all the present Letters Patent Appeal are identical in nature. Accordingly, all the present Letters Patent Appeals are dismissed. Consequently, all the connected Civil Applications are also dismissed.