JUDGMENT : (A.S. Supehia, J.) 1. The present Letters Patent Appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865 emanates from the judgment and order dated 26.10.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in the caption writ petition, assailing the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot in Reference (IT) No.192 of 2003 dated 22.02.2013. The appellant-University had assailed the said award, whereby the Tribunal had directed the University to regularize the respondent with effect from 01.05.2005. 2. The respondent was engaged as a daily rated labourer in the year 1977 and she was terminated in the year 1990, which culminated into reference proceedings being Reference No.1135 of 1990. The Labour Court, by the award dated 06.12.1995 ordered reinstatement with 25% back-wages, which has become final. Thereafter, she was reinstated in service. The Labour Court, in view of the Policy/Scheme of the appellant-University, has directed regularisation of the respondent with effect from 01.05.2005. 3. Learned advocate Mr. D.G. Chauhan appearing for the appellant-University has submitted that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to order regularisation of the respondent workman in light of Third Schedule attached to section 7A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 4. In this regard learned advocate Mr. Chauhan has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Daya Lal & Ors., (2011) 2 SCC 429 . By placing reliance on the judgment of Registrar General Of India And Anr. Vs. V.Thippa Setty And Ors., (1998) 8 S.C.C. 690 , it is submitted that the regularization can only be ordered prospectively and not retrospectively, since the same would affect the service conditions of other employees. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Chauhan has reiterated his submissions and while placing reliance on the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Umadevi & Ors., (2006) 4 S.C.C. 1 , has submitted that the Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge fell in error in ordering the reinstatement. 6. It is also contended that as per the Scheme of the appellant-University, which has been confirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat Agricultural University Vs. Vs. Umadevi & Ors., (2006) 4 S.C.C. 1 , has submitted that the Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge fell in error in ordering the reinstatement. 6. It is also contended that as per the Scheme of the appellant-University, which has been confirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat Agricultural University Vs. Rathod Labhu Bechar & Ors., (2001) 3 S.C.C. 574 , and as considered by the Industrial Tribunal, the respondent, who was working as a daily wager (Field Worker), cannot be regularised in service. Thus, it is urged that the learned Single Judge fell in error in confirming the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal. Mr. Chauhan, learned advocate has referred to the deposition of the respondent workman, and thus, submitted that she has not competed 240 days in a year. 7. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Premal S.Rachh appearing for the respondent workman has submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Industrial Tribunal and as confirmed by the learned Single Judge may not be disturbed, as the same is precisely passed in view of the Policy of the appellant-University, which has been confirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Rathod Labhu Bechar (supra). It is submitted that in fact the Labour Court has ordered regularisation with effect from 01.05.2005, though she would be entitled for the same since the year 1987, as recorded by the learned Single Judge, since she completed ten years’ of service in 1987. Thus, it is urged that the judgment and award may not be interfered with. 8. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties at length. The case of the respondent is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rathod Labhu Bechar (supra). 9. The facts, as recorded by the learned Single Judge are not in dispute. In paragraph No.4.2 of the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, it is categorically recorded that the respondent was engaged in 1977. She was discontinued on 16.10.1986, which was subject matter of Reference Nos.1132 of 1990 to 1136 of 1990 before the Labour Court. The Labour Court set aside the termination vide award dated 06.12.1995 and ordered reinstatement in service with 25% back wages. Accordingly, she was reinstated in the year 1996. She was discontinued on 16.10.1986, which was subject matter of Reference Nos.1132 of 1990 to 1136 of 1990 before the Labour Court. The Labour Court set aside the termination vide award dated 06.12.1995 and ordered reinstatement in service with 25% back wages. Accordingly, she was reinstated in the year 1996. Thereafter, since persons junior to her were regularized in service in light of the Scheme/Policy of the appellant-University, as confirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Rathod Labhu Bechar (supra), she raised a demand of regularisation, which culminated into the aforesaid Reference proceedings being Reference (IT) No.192 of 2003. The Industrial Tribunal, in light of the Policy of the appellant- University, ordered regularisation from 01.05.2005, though she would be entitled from 1987 on completion of ten years of service. 10. While issuing final direction, the Tribunal has recorded that she has been serving continuously since 1996, however, since she has raised a demand in the year 2003, in the interest of justice, she is ordered to be regularised from 01.05.2005. The learned Single Judge, on the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, has confirmed the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, by observing thus: “4.3 Even after the above reinstatement, the respondent was not given the regular pay-scale, though persons junior to her were already regularised in service by the petitioner. Under these circumstances, the respondent moved the labour machinery and the present reference was made. The Industrial Tribunal has directed that the workman be paid regular pay-scale from 01.05.2005. It is this award which is challenged by the employer before this Court. 4.4 This Court finds that, this issue has been gone into, time and again by this Court, and pursuant to the policy framed by the University / directions of Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India, the benefits were ordered to be given on completion of certain years of service. As contended by the learned advocate for the petitioner it is on completion of ten years of service. The contention of the petitioner that till the year 2005, the workman had not completed 240 days continuous service in any year, needs to be rejected for the reason that the petitioner intends to nullify the effect of the earlier award dated 06.12.1995, whereby the termination of 16.10.1986 was held to be illegal. The contention of the petitioner that till the year 2005, the workman had not completed 240 days continuous service in any year, needs to be rejected for the reason that the petitioner intends to nullify the effect of the earlier award dated 06.12.1995, whereby the termination of 16.10.1986 was held to be illegal. The said award is already accepted by the petitioner Authority, even back wages are paid for the interregnum. In this factual back ground, the petitioner Authority can not be heard to contend that the workman, who had initially joined the service in the year 1977 had not put in ten years service by the year 2005 or that had not completed 240 days continuous service in each year. This argument is therefore rejected. 4.5 The Labour Court has given direction that the regularisation is to be effected from 01.05.2005. This Court finds that, the Labour Court has committed error against the workman by directing regularisation from the year 2005, since it is in the year 1987 that she would have completed ten years of service, however the workman has not challenged the said award. Therefore, it would be too harsh to pass further order against the petitioner in his own petition. However, suffice it to hold that, at least no interference is required at the hands of the petitioner in the impugned award. This petition therefore needs to be dismissed. 4.6 The decisions cited by learned advocate for the petitioner are already taken into consideration by this Court while recording judgment in Special Civil Application No.1756 of 2005 dated 08.08.2013, which is already accepted and implemented by the petitioner Authority. There is no reason to take a different view in the matter. So far the additional two decisions of Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India, as noted above, are concerned, there can not be any dispute with regard to the proposition of law annunciated in those decisions, however when the issue about regularisation in the petitioner authority is already adjudicated time and again and it is already implemented by the University qua certain similarly situated workmen, any interference by this Court which even otherwise also is not warranted, would encourage arbitrariness of the petitioner which need not be done.” 11. As recorded by the learned Single Judge in paragraph No.4.6 that in a similar set of facts, the Court vide judgment dated 08.08.2013 passed in Special Civil Application No.1756 of 2005, had rejected the writ petition challenging the similar award, however, in the case of Typist-cum-Clerk, and the same has become final and accepted by the appellant- University. It is not in dispute that the appellant-University has the Scheme, which was considered by the Supreme Court in the case Rathod Labhu Bechar (supra). 12. The Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider the Scheme, in light of the said judgement of the Apex Court in cases of those employees, who had completed ten years of service in the year 2006, in case of the employees of the very University. The Division Bench, by an order dated 02.11.2018 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1223 of 2018, in cases of the employees, who are appointed between the year 1981 and 1984 by the appellant-University and who had completed 240 days and 10 years of service, has held thus: “(10) In the present case, it is an undisputed fact that the respondents – original petitioners are/were serving under the appellant-University and all of them have completed more than 10 years of service. All the respondents were appointed between the year 1981 and 1984. The genesis of the controversy involved in the present appeals lies in the judgment rendered in the case of Gujarat Agricultural University vs. Rathod Labhu Bechar & Ors., AIR 2001 S.C. 706 . The issue which fell for deliberation before the Apex Court in the said judgment was whether the employees of the appellant–University, who had completed 240 days in services can be made permanent and whether they are entitled to all benefits at par with the permanent employees. During the pendency of the civil appeal, the appellant – University proposed a scheme for regularization of the Daily Rated Workers. The relevant scheme is reproduced in the said judgment at Paragraph No.10. "SCHEME FOR REGULARISATION OF DAILY RATED LABOURERS OF THE GUJARAT AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY. 1. During the pendency of the civil appeal, the appellant – University proposed a scheme for regularization of the Daily Rated Workers. The relevant scheme is reproduced in the said judgment at Paragraph No.10. "SCHEME FOR REGULARISATION OF DAILY RATED LABOURERS OF THE GUJARAT AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY. 1. Daily-wager workers, whether skilled, semi-skilled 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 post 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. 2. Daily workers, whether skilled, semiskilled 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 : Daily rate Fixed - pay prescribed by the 26+Rs.50 Government front time to time for skilled, semi-skilled, 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.” (11) In light of the scheme, the Apex Court directed the present appellant University to regularize the services of the Daily Rated Workers, who have completed 10 years of service on 31.12.2000 in phase-wise. 15/-, Rs. 20/- and Rs. 25/- respectively for unskilled, semi-skilled and skilled workers till their services are regularised as per para-1.” (11) In light of the scheme, the Apex Court directed the present appellant University to regularize the services of the Daily Rated Workers, who have completed 10 years of service on 31.12.2000 in phase-wise. It was further observed by the Apex Court that: “… … … … We hope and trust, the Government who is the guardian of the people and is obliged under Article 38 of the Constitution, to secure a social order for the promotions of welfare of the people, to eliminate inequalities in status, will endeavour to give maximum posts even at the first stage of absorption, and do the same in the same spirit for creating additional posts after enquiry as we are indicating hereunder. It is necessary that the State Government to set up an enquiry to find what further number of additional posts are required for regularising such other daily rated workers, and after assessing it, to create such additional posts for their absorption. This exercise should be done by the State Government within a period of six months. … … … …” (12) Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, the State Government vide resolution dated 01.04.2002 created 890 posts and sanctioned two pay-scales of Rs.2550-3200 and Rs.3050-4590. The appellant-University in progression passed orders placing the respondents as monthly rated employees with effect from 01.01.2001. One of such orders is passed on 16.07.2001 by the appellant University, in which the name of the respondent – Punjabhai Gambhai Boriya figures at Serial No.23. It is pertinent to refer to the condition No.3 therein, which specifically stipulates that as and when the posts are available, such employees would be placed in the regular pay-scales. (13) It appears that subsequently, after sanctioning of 890 posts, the State Government did not approve or sanction further posts. The appellant University, after the order dated 16.07.2001, neither made the respondents as permanent employees nor placed them in the regular pay-scale. Feeling aggrieved by such action, the respondents– original petitioners approached this court seeking the benefit of the scheme which was proposed before the Apex Court. The appellant University, after the order dated 16.07.2001, neither made the respondents as permanent employees nor placed them in the regular pay-scale. Feeling aggrieved by such action, the respondents– original petitioners approached this court seeking the benefit of the scheme which was proposed before the Apex Court. During the pendency of the present writ petitions, the appellant University also placed the respondents–original petitioners in the regular pay-scale from the date of filing of the writ petitions and the same is made subject to the result of the respective petitions. (14) The contention raised by the appellantUniversity that the scheme approved by the Apex Court in the case of Gujarat Agricultural University (supra) stands “over-ruled” in view of the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Umadevi (supra) requires strong deprecation as such the same amounts to misreading and misinterpretation of both the decisions. The said decision also figures in the array of the judgements which are considered by the Constitution Bench in Umadevi (supra). After survey all the judgements on the issue, in Paragraph No.54 the Constitution Bench has observed that : “It is also clarified that those decisions which run counter to the principle settled in this decision, or in which directions running counter to what we have held herein, will stand denuded of their status as precedents.” Thus, the decision in the case of Gujarat Agricultural University (supra) approving the scheme of the regularization of the appellant– University cannot be said to have been overruled by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Umadevi (supra) in light of the observations made in paragraph 54. If the justice is done by the Apex Court by approving the scheme, and the scheme is implemented in view of the judgement; the same cannot be erased even if subsequently the error of law is corrected. Thus, the appellant cannot disown their own scheme which was approved by the Apex Court. (15) In the case of Umadevi (Supra) in Paragraph No.53, it is observed that irregularly recruited employees – Daily Rated Employees, who have worked for more than 10 years in service are to be regularized as a one-time measure. Thus, the appellant cannot disown their own scheme which was approved by the Apex Court. (15) In the case of Umadevi (Supra) in Paragraph No.53, it is observed that irregularly recruited employees – Daily Rated Employees, who have worked for more than 10 years in service are to be regularized as a one-time measure. Subsequently, in a recent decision in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari vs. State of Jharkhand, AIR 2018 S.C. 3589 , the Apex Court has observed thus: “The decision in the case of Umadevi (supra) was intended to put a full stop to the somewhat pernicious practice of irregularly or illegally appointing daily wage workers and continuing with them indefinitely. In fact, in paragraph 49 of the Report, it was pointed out that the rule of law requires appointments to be made in a constitutional manner and the State cannot be permitted to perpetuate an irregularity in the matter of public employment which would adversely affect those who could be employed in terms of the constitutional scheme. It is for this reason that the concept of a one-time measure and a cut-off date was introduced in the hope and expectation that the State would cease and desist from making irregular or illegal appointments and instead make appointments on a regular basis.” The concept of a one-time measure was further explained by the Apex Court in the case reported in State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 S.C.C. 247 in Paragraph Nos.9, 10 and 11 which read as follows: "9. The term "one-time measure" has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi (3), each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, dailywage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularise their services. 10. At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi (3), cases of several daily-wage/ad hoc/casual employees were still pending before courts. Consequently, several departments and instrumentalities did not commence the one-time regularisation process. 10. At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi (3), cases of several daily-wage/ad hoc/casual employees were still pending before courts. Consequently, several departments and instrumentalities did not commence the one-time regularisation process. On the other hand, some government departments or instrumentalities undertook the onetime exercise excluding several employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such circumstances, the employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of para 53 of the decision in Umadevi (3), will not lose their right to be considered for regularisation, merely because the onetime exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six month period mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi (3) has expired. The one-time exercise should consider all daily-wage/ad hoc/casual employees who had put in 10 years of continuous service as on 10-4-2006 without availing the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If any employer had held the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of Umadevi (3), but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umadevi (3), the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one time exercise. The one-time exercise will be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of para 53 of Umadevi (3), are so considered. 11. The object behind the said direction in para 53 of Umadevi (3) is twofold. First is to ensure that those who have put in more than ten years of continuous service without the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevi (3) was rendered, are considered for regularisation in view of their long service. Second is to ensure that the departments/ instrumentalities do not perpetuate the practice of employing persons on daily-wage/ad hoc/casual basis for long periods and then periodically regularise them on the ground that they have served for more than ten years, thereby defeating the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointment. Second is to ensure that the departments/ instrumentalities do not perpetuate the practice of employing persons on daily-wage/ad hoc/casual basis for long periods and then periodically regularise them on the ground that they have served for more than ten years, thereby defeating the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointment. The true effect of the direction is that all persons who have worked for more than ten years as on 10-4-2006 [the date of decision in Umadevi (3)] without the protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to be considered for regularisation. The fact that the employer has not undertaken such exercise of regularisation within six months of the decision in Umadevi (3) or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, will not disentitle such employees, the right to be considered for regularisation in terms of the above directions in Umadevi (3) as a one-time measure." The purpose and intent of the decision in the case of Umadevi (supra) was therefore, two-fold, namely, firstly, to prevent irregular or illegal appointment in future and secondly, to confer a benefit on those who had been irregularly appointed in the past. The fact that the State of Jharkhand continued with the irregular appointment for almost a decade after the decision in the case of Umadevi (supra) is a clear indication that it believes that it was all right to continue with irregular appointment, and whenever required, terminate the services of the irregularly appointed employees on the ground that they were irregularly appointed. This is nothing but a form of exploitation of the employees by not giving them the benefits of regularisation and by placing the sword of Damocles over their head. This is precisely what in the cases of Umadevi (supra) and M.L. Kesari (supra) sought to avoid. (16) Thus, the appellant University was under an obligation to regularize all the employees who had completed 10 years of service as on 10.04.2006 as a one-time measure, as directed by the Constitution Bench in the case of Umadevi (supra). Indubitably, the respondent employees have completed more than 10 years of service since they were all appointed between the year 1981 and 1984. Indubitably, the respondent employees have completed more than 10 years of service since they were all appointed between the year 1981 and 1984. (17) As noted hereinabove, by the order dated 16.07.2001, the respondents – employees are already given the benefits of the said scheme by placing them in a monthly wage and it was observed that as and when, on the availability of the posts, they shall be granted the benefits of regularization and regular pay-scale. Thus, the appellant having acted on the scheme which was approved by the Apex Court cannot subsequently take a volte-face by saying that the said scheme is overruled in the case of Umadevi (supra). The appellant– University cannot adopt discriminatory approach by not conferring the benefits to some of the employees / daily wagers like the respondents – original petitioners by denying the benefits of permanency/ regularization to them when the similarly situated employees have already been given the benefits of regularization and regular pay-scale after completion of 10 years of continuous service. Subsequently also, pursuant to the order dated 17.10.2011 passed by this court in the writ petitions as narrated hereinabove, similarly situated employees to the respondents – employees have also been made permanent in view of the scheme approved by the Apex Court in the case of Gujarat Agricultural University (Supra). Learned advocate Mr.Chauhan is unable to controvert the aforesaid order dated 17.10.2011. (18) Thus, in the considered opinion of this court, the stand taken by the appellant in the appeals is replete with impropriety and is strictly deprecated. The appellant-University was expected to implement the scheme in its true letter and spirit, once it was approved by the Apex Court in the case of Gujarat Agricultural University (supra). (19) The judgments cited by the learned advocate Mr. Chauhan cannot come to the rescue of the appellant. Apropos the contention raised by the learned advocate Mr. Chauhan that the learned Single Judge has erred in granting the relief which was not prayed for by the respondents – original petitioners in the writ petitions; it needs to be stated that the original petitioners had approached this court claiming the benefit of the scheme of the appellant-University. The pleadings in the writ petitions depict that the petitioners after failing in their sincere efforts made before the appellant-University claiming the benefits of regularization and permanency as per the scheme, filed the writ petitions. The pleadings in the writ petitions depict that the petitioners after failing in their sincere efforts made before the appellant-University claiming the benefits of regularization and permanency as per the scheme, filed the writ petitions. Thus, in the considered opinion of this court, no fault can be attributed to the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in issuing such directions in wake of the fact that other similarly situated employees to the respondents – employees have been conferred the benefit of regular pay-scale/ permanency. (20) On the bedrock of the aforesaid facts and analysis, the present Letters Patent Appeals are hereby dismissed. The appellant-University is hereby directed to grant the benefits of permanency/regularization by placing the respondents-employees (original petitioners) in the regular pay-scale from the date they have completed 10 years of service. The said benefit shall be granted forthwith.” 13. Similar contentions which are raised before us, were also raised before the Co-ordinate Bench. The judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi (supra), was also considered. This Court had directed the appellant-University to regularize those employees who had completed ten years of service as per the Scheme. It is reported that the S.L.P. filed by the University has been dismissed and the said order has been complied with. 14. In light of the aforesaid facts, the contention raised by the learned advocate Mr. Chauhan appearing for the appellant-University that the Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to order regularisation, pales into insignificance. The Supreme Court in the case of Rathod Labhu Bechar (supra), had in fact has examined the award passed by the Labour Court directing regularisation, and ultimately, the Supreme Court has held, as recorded herein above. 15. Thus, in view of the Scheme of the appellant-University, the provisions of Schedule-3 attached to Section 7A of the I.D. Act would not get attracted, as the Industrial Tribunal has only directed the appellant-University to extend the benefit of the Scheme to the respondent. The other judgments, on which the reliance has been placed, will also not come to the rescue of the appellant-University in light of the order passed by the Division Bench dated 02.11.2018 as well as in light of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Rathod Labhu Bechar (supra). The other judgments, on which the reliance has been placed, will also not come to the rescue of the appellant-University in light of the order passed by the Division Bench dated 02.11.2018 as well as in light of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Rathod Labhu Bechar (supra). We are in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the Labour Court and as confirmed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the present Letters Patent Appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. 16. As recorded by the learned Single Judge, the Tribunal has committed an error granting the benefit from 2005 since the respondent in fact became entitled to the benefit of regularization as per scheme after completion of 10 years in the year 1987.However, since the award has been accepted by the Respondent, the date of regularization cannot be altered. In fact, the University has gained from fixation of regularization from 2005. The deposition of the respondent with regard to non-completion of 240 days has been misread and misconstrued by the appellant. The learned Single Judge in this regard has precisely recorded that by raising such contention, the appellant has made an attempt to nullify the effect of the earlier award dated 06.12.1995 passed by the Labour Court setting aside the termination dated 16.10.1986 with further direction to pay back wages. The said award has been implemented. Hence, in wake of the implementation of the award, it is not open for the appellant to raise this issue. 17. It is reported that the respondent has retired on 31.12.2011. The benefits arising from the judgment and award and as confirmed by the learned Single Judge, has to be paid from 01.05.2005 even if the respondent has reached the age of superannuation. The retirement benefits shall also be revised. 18. The consequential benefits arising from the award and as confirmed by the Tribunal shall be granted to the respondent workman within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this judgment, failing which such benefits shall carry 12% interest per annum. 19. In view of the above, Civil Application No.2 of 2016 stands dismissed.