JUDGMENT : (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA) 1. ADMIT. Learned advocates appear and waive service of notice of admission on behalf of the respective respondents. 2. The present group of appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865 are directed against the identical but separate judgment and orders dated 16.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting the writ petitions filed by the appellant - Savarkundla Municipality assailing the awards passed by the Industrial Tribunal (for short, “the Tribunal”) in the reference proceedings. 3. The details of the employees, as supplied by the learned advocates appearing for the respective workmen, read as under : - 4. So far as the details of the employee of Letters Patent Appeal No.1426 of 2024 is concerned, the workman – Yunusbhai Alibhai Saiyed, who has been appointed on the post of Valveman/Pumpman on 17.02.2006, has raised the dispute in the year 2009 claiming regularization, which has been allowed by the Tribunal vide award dated 09.12.2022 passed in Reference (IT) No.34 of 2009, directing the appellant – Municipality to regularize the services of the workman as Pumpman w.e.f. 17.02.2006 (date of joining). Benefits such as salary grade and other benefits of seniority, promotion, gratuity and other retirement benefits shall be awarded from 17.02.2006. The period, from the date of joining till the date of reference, is to be considered as notional and no arrears shall be paid for that period. 5. So far as the details of the employee of Letters Patent Appeal No.1427 of 2024 is concerned, the workman – Hareshbhai Batukbhai Rathod, who has been appointed on the post of Valveman on 01.07.2005, has raised the dispute in the year 2009 claiming regularization, which has been allowed by the Tribunal vide award dated 29.11.2021 passed in Reference (IT) No.6 of 2009, directing to get sanction for the post of Valveman/Pumpman within 6 months from the competent authority, to regularize services of the workman as Valveman from 01.07.2005. The benefits of seniority, such as salary grade and other benefits of seniority, promotion, gratuity and other retirement benefits shall be awarded from 01.07.2005. The Tribunal has further directed that the service of the respondent-workman from 01.07.2005 (date of joining) to 29.11.2021 (date of award) is to be considered as notional and no arrears shall be paid to this period. 6. The Tribunal has further directed that the service of the respondent-workman from 01.07.2005 (date of joining) to 29.11.2021 (date of award) is to be considered as notional and no arrears shall be paid to this period. 6. So far as the details of the employee of Letters Patent Appeal No.1428 of 2024 is concerned, the workman – Rameshbhai Ukabhai Makwana, who has been appointed on the post of Valveman/Pumpman on 01.11.2009, has raised the dispute in the year 2011 claiming regularization, which has been allowed by the Tribunal vide award dated 09.12.2022 passed in Reference (IT) No.73 of 2011, directing the appellant – Municipality to grant benefit of regularization to the respondent – workman as Pumpman from 01.11.2009 (date of joining). The benefits such as salary grade and other benefits of seniority, promotion, gratuity and other retirement benefits shall be awarded from the date of joining. The period, from the date of joining till the date of reference, is to be considered as notional and no arrears shall be paid for that period. 7. So far as the details of the employee of Letters Patent Appeal No.1429 of 2024 is concerned, the workman – Rajubhai Bhupatbhai Gohil, who has been appointed on the post of Driver on 01.06.2005, has raised the dispute in the year 2009 claiming regularization, which has been allowed by the Tribunal vide award dated 21.12.2021 passed in Reference (IT) No.31 of 2009, directing the appellant - Municipality to grant the benefit of regularization to the respondent/workman as Driver from 01.06.2005 (date of joining). The benefits such as salary, grade and other benefits of seniority, promotion, gratuity and retirement benefits shall be awarded from 01.06.2005. The period, from the date of joining till the date of award, is to be considered as notional and no arrears shall be paid for that period. 8. So far as the details of the employee of Letters Patent Appeal No.1430 of 2024 is concerned, the workman – Kalyanbhai Nagjibhai Rathod, who has been appointed on the post of Valveman/Pumpman on 01.01.1996, has raised the dispute in the year 2011 claiming regularization, which has been allowed by the Tribunal vide award dated 09.12.2022 passed in Reference (IT) No.121 of 2011 directing the appellant Municipality to grant the benefit of regularization to the respondent/workman from 01.01.1996 (date of joining). The benefits such as salary, grade and other benefits of seniority, promotion, gratuity and retirement benefits shall be awarded from 01.01.1996. The period, from the date of joining till the date of award, is to be considered as notional and no arrears shall be paid for that period. 9. So far as the details of the employee of Letters Patent Appeal No.1431 of 2024 is concerned, the workman – Pradipsinh Natwarsinh Jadeja, who has been appointed on the post of Driver on 01.03.1999, has raised the dispute in the year 2009 claiming regularization, which has been allowed by the Tribunal vide award dated 29.11.2021 passed in Reference (IT) No.21 of 2009 directing the appellant- Municipality to grant the benefit of regularization to the respondent/workman from 01.03.1999 (date of joining). The benefits such as salary, grade and other benefits of seniority, promotion, gratuity and retirement benefits shall be awarded from 01.03.1999. The period, from the date of joining till the date of award, is to be considered as notional. 10. So far as the details of the employee of Letters Patent Appeal No.1432 of 2024 is concerned, the workman – Chandreshbhai Kishorebhai Teraiya, who has been appointed on the post of Clerk on 10.04.2006, has raised the dispute in the year 2010 claiming regularization, which has been allowed by the Tribunal vide award dated 05.10.2021 passed in Reference (IT) No.49 of 2010 directing to create post of Clerk within 6 months, to regularize services of the workman as Clerk from 11.03.2008. The period, from the date of joining till the date of award, is to be considered as notional and no arrears shall be paid for that period. 11. So far as the details of the employee of Letters Patent Appeal No.1433 of 2024 is concerned, the workman – Monojbhai Chaganbhai Kodavla, who has been appointed on the post of Valveman/Pumpman on 01.02.2008 as a Daily Wager, has raised the dispute in the year 2010 claiming regularization, which has been allowed by the Tribunal vide award dated 09.12.2022 passed in Reference (IT) No.111 of 2010 directing the appellant- Municipality to grant the benefit of regularization to the respondent/workman from 01.02.2008 (date of joining). The benefits such as salary, grade and other benefits of seniority, promotion, gratuity and retirement benefits shall be awarded from 01.02.2008. The benefits such as salary, grade and other benefits of seniority, promotion, gratuity and retirement benefits shall be awarded from 01.02.2008. The period, from the date of joining till the date of award, is to be considered as notional and no arrears shall be paid for that period. 12. So far as the details of the employee of Letters Patent Appeal No.1434 of 2024 is concerned, the workman–Late Dipakbhai Shashkant Maru, who has been appointed on the post of Plumber on 01.01.1991 and the workman has raised the dispute in the year 2009 claiming regularization, which has been allowed by the Tribunal vide award dated 25.01.2009 passed in Reference (IT) No.32 of 2009, directing the appellant- Municipality to grant the benefit of regularization to the respondent/workman from 01.01.1991. The benefits such as salary, grade and other benefits of seniority, promotion, gratuity and retirement benefits shall be awarded from 01.01.1991. The period, from the date of joining till the date of award, is to be considered as notional and no arrears shall be paid for that period. 13. So far as the details of the employee of Letters Patent Appeal No.1435 of 2024 is concerned, the workman – Naushadkhan Yusufkhan Pathan, who has been appointed on the post of Pumpman/Valveman on 01.07.2008, has raised the dispute in the year 2010 claiming regularization, which has been allowed by the Tribunal vide award dated 31.01.2023 passed in Reference (IT) No.47 of 2010 directing the appellant- Municipality to grant the benefit of regularization to the respondent/workman from 01.07.2008. The benefits such as salary, grade and other benefits of seniority, promotion, gratuity and retirement benefits shall be awarded from 01.07.2008. The period, from the date of joining till the date of award, is to be considered as notional and no arrears shall be paid for that period. 14. So far as the details of the employee of Letters Patent Appeal No.1436 of 2024 is concerned, the workman – Vipulbhai Parshotambhai Vagh, who has been appointed on the post of Fitter on 01.10.2007, has raised the dispute in the year 2009 claiming regularization, which has been allowed by the Tribunal vide award dated 09.12.2022 passed in Reference (IT) No.46 of 2009 directing the appellant- Municipality to grant benefit of regularization to the respondent/workman from 01.10.2007. The benefits such as salary, grade and other benefits of seniority, promotion, gratuity and retirement benefits shall be awarded from 01.10.2007. The benefits such as salary, grade and other benefits of seniority, promotion, gratuity and retirement benefits shall be awarded from 01.10.2007. The period, from the date of joining till the date of award, is to be considered as notional and no arrears shall be paid for that period. 15. So far as the details of the employee of Letters Patent Appeal No.1440 of 2024 is concerned, the workman – Hiteshbhai Mohanlal Tank, who has been appointed on the post of Pumpman/Valveman on 02.08.1996, has raised the dispute in the year 2007 claiming regularization, which has been allowed by the Tribunal vide award dated 21.12.2021 passed in Reference (IT) No.39 of 2007 directing the appellant- Municipality to send a proposal to proper forum to create post of Pumpman/Valveman within 6 months. After sanctioning the post, grant regularization to the Hiteshkumar Mohanlal Tank from 02.08.1996 on post of Valveman. The benefits such as salary, grade and retirement benefits of seniority, promotion, gratuity and retirement benefits shall be awarded from 02.08.1996. The period, from the date of joining till the date of award, is to be considered as notional and no arrears shall be paid for that period. 16. So far as the details of the employee of Letters Patent Appeal No.1441 of 2024 is concerned, the workman – Maheshkumar Dhirajlal Jani, who has been appointed on the post of Valveman/Pumpman on 15.01.2007 as a Daily Wager, has raised the dispute in the year 2011 claiming regularization, which has been allowed by the Tribunal vide award dated 09.12.2022 passed in Reference (IT) No.76 of 2011 directing to regularize services of the workman as Pumpman from 15.01.2007. The benefits such as salary, grade and retirement benefits of seniority, promotion, gratuity and retirement benefits shall be awarded from 15.01.2007. The period, from the date of joining till the date of award, is to be considered as notional and no arrears shall be paid for that period. 17. The benefits such as salary, grade and retirement benefits of seniority, promotion, gratuity and retirement benefits shall be awarded from 15.01.2007. The period, from the date of joining till the date of award, is to be considered as notional and no arrears shall be paid for that period. 17. So far as the details of the employee of Letters Patent Appeal No.1442 of 2024 is concerned, the workman – Babubhai Bhagvanbhai Parmar, who has been appointed on the post of Driver on 01.06.2003 as Daily Wager, has raised the dispute in the year 2009 claiming regularization, which has been allowed by the Tribunal vide award dated 29.11.2021 passed in Reference (IT) No.25 of 2009 directing the appellant Municipality to grant the benefit of regularization to the respondent/workman from 01.06.2003 (date of joining). The benefits such as salary, grade and retirement benefits of seniority, promotion, gratuity and retirement benefits shall be awarded from 01.06.2003. The period, from the date of joining till the date of award, is to be considered as notional. 18. So far as the details of the employee of Letters Patent Appeal No.1443 of 2024 is concerned, the workman – Valabhai Oghadbhai Mevada, who has been appointed on the post of Valveman/Pumpman on 15.02.2007 as Daily Wager, has raised the dispute in the year 2011 claiming regularization, which has been allowed by the Tribunal vide award dated 29.11.2021 passed in Reference (IT) No.102 of 2011 directing the appellant-Municipality to grant benefit of regularization to the respondent/workman from 15.02.2007 (date of joining). The benefits such as salary, grade and retirement benefits of seniority, promotion, gratuity and retirement benefits shall be awarded from 15.02.2007. The period, from the date of joining till the date of award, is to be considered as notional and no arrears shall be paid for that period. 19. So far as the details of the employee of Letters Patent Appeal No.1444 of 2024 is concerned, the workman – bharatbhai Bhimbhai Vikma, who has been appointed on the post of Valveman/Pumpman on 01.06.2007 as Daily Wager, has raised the dispute in the year 2009 claiming regularization, which has been allowed by the Tribunal vide award dated 29.11.2021 passed in Reference (IT) No.07 of 2009 directing the appellant-Municipality to grant benefit of regularization to the respondent/workman from 01.06.2009 (date of joining). The benefits such as salary, grade and retirement benefits of seniority, promotion, gratuity and retirement benefits shall be awarded from 01.06.2009. The period, from the date of joining till the date of award, is to be considered as notional and no arrears shall be paid for that period. 20. So far as the details of the employee of Letters Patent Appeal No.1445 of 2024 is concerned, the workman – Prashant Kumar Rajendrabhai Mehta, who has been appointed on the post of Computer Operator on 03.06.2010 and the workman has raised the dispute in the year 2012 claiming regularization, which has been allowed by the Tribunal vide award dated 05.10.2021 passed in Reference (IT) No.79 of 2012 directing to create post of Computer Operator within 6 months, to regularize services of the workman as Computer Operator from 03.06.2010. The financial benefits from that date of to the date of award are ordered to be treated as notional (not granted) but continuity of service for seniority promotions and retiral benefits are granted and no arrears ordered to be paid for this period. 21. So far as the details of the employee of Letters Patent Appeal No.1446 of 2024 is concerned, the workman – Vinubhai Khodabhai Vinjuda, who has been appointed on the post of Valveman/Pumpman on 01.11.1991, has raised the dispute in the year 2009 claiming regularization, which has been allowed by the Tribunal vide award dated 29.11.2021 passed in Reference (IT) No.27 of 2009 directing the appellant – Municipality to regularize service of the respondent - workman from 01.11.1991. The benefits of seniority, such as salary grade and other benefits of seniority, promotion, gratuity and other retirement benefits shall be awarded from 01.11.1991. The Tribunal has further directed that the service of the respondent – workman from 01.11.1991 (date of joining) to 29.11.2021 (date of award) is to be considered as Notional and no arrears shall be paid for this period. 22. The Tribunal has further directed that the service of the respondent – workman from 01.11.1991 (date of joining) to 29.11.2021 (date of award) is to be considered as Notional and no arrears shall be paid for this period. 22. So far as the details of the employee of Letters Patent Appeal No.1447 of 2024 is concerned, the workman – Ahemadbhai Kasambhai Zankhara, who has been appointed on the post of Valveman/Pumpman on 01.11.2001 and the workman has raised the dispute in the year 2009 claiming regularization, which has been allowed by the Tribunal vide award dated 09.12.2022 passed in Reference (IT) No.33 of 2009 directing the appellant – Municipality to regularize service of the respondent - workman from 01.11.2001. The benefits of seniority, such as salary grade and other benefits of seniority, promotion, gratuity and other retirement benefits shall be awarded from 01.11.2001. The Tribunal has further directed that the period, from the date of joining till the date of reference, is to be considered as notional and no arrears shall be paid for this period. 23. So far as the details of the employee of Letters Patent Appeal No.1448 of 2024 is concerned, the workman – Late Sureshbhai Ravjibhai Kodawala, who has been appointed on the post of Driver on 01.02.2008, has raised the dispute in the year 2010 claiming regularization, which has been allowed by the Tribunal vide award dated 25.01.2022 passed in Reference (IT) No.59 of 2011 directing the appellant-Municipality to grant the benefit of regularization to the respondent – workman from the date of joining till his death i.e. 31.12.2020. It was also directed that all consequential the benefits from the date of regularization till the date of his death with arrears i.e. from 05.02.2011 to 31.12.2020 shall be given to the legal heir (widow) of the deceased. The benefits such as salary grade and other benefits of seniority, promotion, gratuity and other retirement benefits shall be awarded from 01.02.2008. The period, from the date of joining i.e. 01.02.2008 till 05.02.2011, is to be considered as notional and arrears are directed to be paid from 05.02.2011 to 31.12.2020 to the legal heir (widow) of the deceased. 24. The benefits such as salary grade and other benefits of seniority, promotion, gratuity and other retirement benefits shall be awarded from 01.02.2008. The period, from the date of joining i.e. 01.02.2008 till 05.02.2011, is to be considered as notional and arrears are directed to be paid from 05.02.2011 to 31.12.2020 to the legal heir (widow) of the deceased. 24. So far as the details of the employee of Letters Patent Appeal No.1449 of 2024 is concerned, the workman – Kalubhai Velabhai Beradiya, who has been appointed on the post of Driver on 01.06.1993, has raised the dispute in the year 2009 claiming regularization, which has been allowed by the Tribunal vide award dated 29.11.2021 passed in Reference (IT) No.28 of 2009 directing the appellant-Municipality to grant the benefit of regularization to the respondent/workman from 01.06.1993 (date of joining). The benefits such as salary, grade and retirement benefits of seniority, promotion, gratuity and retirement benefits shall be awarded from 01.06.1993. The period, from the date of joining till the date of award, is to be considered as notional. 25. So far as the details of the employee of Letters Patent Appeal No.1487 of 2024 is concerned, the workman – Pratapbhai Manglubhai Khuman, who has been appointed on the post of Pumpman/Valveman on 01.11.2010, and the workman has raised the dispute in the year 2012 claiming regularization, which has been allowed by the Tribunal vide award dated 05.10.2021 passed in Reference (IT) No.77 of 2012 directing to create post of Pumpman/Valveman within 6 months, to regularize services of the workman as Pumpman/Valveman from 01.11.2010. The benefits such as salary, grade and retirement benefits of seniority, promotion, gratuity and retirement benefits shall be awarded from 01.11.2010. The period, from the date of joining till the date of award, is to be considered as notional and no arrears shall be paid for this period. 26. So far as the details of the employee of Letters Patent Appeal No.1488 of 2024 is concerned, the workman – Jitubhai Chhanabhai Beradiya, who has been appointed on the post of Valveman on 10.05.1990, has raised the dispute in the year 2009 claiming regularization, which has been allowed by the Tribunal vide award dated 05.10.2021 passed in Reference (IT) No.22 of 2009 directing to create post of Valveman/Pumpman within 6 months, to regularize services of the workman as Valveman/Pumpman from 10.05.1990. The benefits such as salary, grade and retirement benefits of seniority, promotion, gratuity and retirement benefits shall be awarded from 10.05.1990. The period, from the date of joining till the date of award, is to be considered as notional and no arrears shall be paid for this period. 27. So far as the details of the employee of Letters Patent Appeal No.1494 of 2024 is concerned, the workman – Ravisinh Harisinh Parmar, who has been appointed on the post of Valveman on 01.06.2006, has raised the dispute in the year 2009 claiming regularization, which has been allowed by the Tribunal vide award dated 05.10.2021 passed in Reference (IT) No.08 of 2009 directing to create post of Pumpman/Valveman within 6 months, to regularize services of the workman as Pumpman/Valveman from 01.06.2006. The benefits such as salary, grade and retirement benefits of seniority, promotion, gratuity and retirement benefits shall be awarded from 01.06.2006. The period, from the date of joining till the date of award, is to be considered as notional and no arrears shall be paid for this period. 28. So far as the details of the employee of Letters Patent Appeal No.1495 of 2024 is concerned, the workman – Harjivan Ramjibhai Dhamal, who has been appointed on the post of Driver as Daily Wager on 01.10.2006, has raised the dispute in the year 2009 claiming regularization, which has been allowed by the Tribunal vide award dated 05.10.2021 passed in Reference (IT) No.29 of 2009 directing the appellant Municipality to grant the benefit of regularization to the respondent/workman from 01.10.2006 (date of joining). The benefits such as salary, grade and retirement benefits of seniority, promotion, gratuity and retirement benefits shall be awarded from 01.10.2006. The period from the date of joining till the date of award is to be considered as notional. 29. So far as the details of the employee of Letters Patent Appeal No.1401 of 2024 is concerned, the workman – Khumansinh Ajitsinh Jadeja, who has been appointed on the post of Driver on 01.04.2002, has raised the dispute in the year 2009 claiming regularization, which has been allowed by the Tribunal vide award dated 29.11.2021 passed in Reference (IT) No.30 of 2009 directing the appellant Municipality to grant benefit of regularization to the respondent/workman from 01.04.2002 (date of joining). The benefits such as salary, grade and retirement benefits of seniority, promotion, gratuity and retirement benefits shall be awarded from 01.04.2002. The period, from the date of joining till the date of award, is to be considered as notional and no arrears shall be paid for that period. 30. So far as the details of the employee of Letters Patent Appeal No.1402 of 2024 is concerned, the workman – Hareshbhai Ramjibhai Vinzuda, who has been appointed on the post of Clerk on 07.07.1998 and the workman has raised the dispute in the year 2011 claiming regularization, which has been allowed by the Tribunal vide award dated 09.12.2022 passed in Reference (IT) No.77 of 2011 directing to regularize services of the workman from 07.07.1998. The benefits such as salary, grade and retirement benefits of seniority, promotion, gratuity and retirement benefits shall be awarded from 07.07.1998. The period, from the date of joining till the date of award, is to be considered as notional and no arrears shall be paid for that period. 31. So far as the details of the employee of Letters Patent Appeal No.1403 of 2024 is concerned, the workman – Bhaveshbhai Pratapbhai Khuman, (Water Works Department) who has been appointed on the post of Supervisor on 01.10.2006 and the workman has raised the dispute in the year 2012 claiming regularization, which has been allowed by the Tribunal vide award dated 05.10.2021 passed in Reference (IT) No.76 of 2012 directing to regularize services of the workman from 01.10.2006. The benefits such as salary, grade and retirement benefits of seniority, promotion, gratuity and retirement benefits shall be awarded from 01.10.2006. The period, from the date of joining till the date of award, is to be considered as notional and no arrears shall be paid for that period. 32. So far as the details of the employee of Letters Patent Appeal No.1396 of 2024 is concerned, the workman – Atulbhai Kerambhai Chudasma, who has been appointed on the post of Valveman/Pumpman on 31.09.1997, has raised the dispute in the year 2009 claiming regularization, which has been allowed by the Tribunal vide award dated 29.11.2021 passed in Reference (IT) No.24 of 2009 directing to regularize services of the workman from 31.09.1997. The benefits such as salary, grade and retirement benefits of seniority, promotion, gratuity and retirement benefits shall be awarded from 31.09.1997. The benefits such as salary, grade and retirement benefits of seniority, promotion, gratuity and retirement benefits shall be awarded from 31.09.1997. The period, from the date of joining till the date of award, is to be considered as notional and no arrears shall be paid for that period. 33. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. D. P. Sanchela, appearing for the appellant – Municipality has submitted that the Tribunal fell in error in ordering regularization of the workmen since no sanctioned posts were available. He has submitted that in fact, there are various orders passed by the Tribunal, which are not in line with each other. It is submitted that the Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge fell in error in not considering the Resolution dated 01.06.2010 passed by the Urban Housing Department, wherein it was stated that henceforth, no Valvemen/Pumpmen/Fitters/Driver/Supervisor/Clerk like the present respondent-workmen are required to be engaged in the Water Works Department. 34. Learned advocate Mr.Sanchela, appearing for the appellant – Municipality has also placed reliance on the setup, which was produced before the Tribunal at Exh.21 and also the affidavit filed by the Savarkundla Municipality contending that no post of Valvemen/Pumpmen/Fitters/Driver/Supervisor/Clerk is sanctioned by the Municipality and hence, it is urged that the judgment and orders passed by the learned Single Judge confirming the awards passed by the Tribunal may be set aside. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vibhuti Shankar Pandey Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, 2023 (3) S.C.C. 639 . 35. Learned advocate Mr.Sanchela, appearing for the Municipality has further submitted that in some of the cases, the Industrial Tribunal has directed the appellant – Municipality to create a supernumerary post, which cannot be ordered without permission of the State Government and hence, it is urged that the impugned judgment and orders passed by this Court as well as awards passed by the Tribunal and as confirmed by the learned Single Judge may be quashed and set aside. Learned advocate Mr.Sanchela, in the alternatively, has submitted that in case the Court is confirming the award passed by the Tribunal as well as the judgment and orders passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant – Municipality may be directed to regularize the service of the employees as per the seniority. 36. Learned advocate Mr.Sanchela, in the alternatively, has submitted that in case the Court is confirming the award passed by the Tribunal as well as the judgment and orders passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant – Municipality may be directed to regularize the service of the employees as per the seniority. 36. Per contra, learned advocates appearing for the respondent – employees has submitted that all these contentions were raised before the Coordinate Bench by the very same Municipality and the Coordinate Bench, after considering the evidence on record, which was similar in nature, has ultimately rejected the appeals being Letters Patent Appeal No.973 of 2023 and allied matters vide judgment and order dated 23.01.2024, which was assailed before the Supreme Court by filing SLP (C) No.1606 of 2024 and the same has been rejected by the Supreme Court. It is submitted by the learned advocates that in the present case, the workmen are appointed in the years 1995 and 1997 and they continued in the Water Works Department by the Municipality and hence, as held by the Coordinate Bench in the order dated 23.01.2024 in the case of very same Municipality, such engagement for all these years would amount to unfair labour practice. It is submitted that the Coordinate Bench, after considering array of the judgments, has rejected the Letters Patent Appeal and since the present workmen are juniors and appointed earlier to those workmen, the present appeal may be rejected. 37. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 38. At this stage, we have noticed that the Coordinate Bench, while dealing with the self-same issue in the case of similar workmen/employees and colleagues of the respondents, while dealing with the similar contentions raised by the Savarkundla Municipality has rejected the Letters Patent Appeal, challenging the awards, as confirmed by the learned Single Judges of this Court. 39. The details of such workmen, who were before the Coordinate Bench, who are appointed in the Water Works Department as Valvemen/Pumpmen/Fitters is as under : - Sr. No Particulars Workman Name Post Date of Joining 1. Letters Patent Appeal No.973 of 2023 Alkubhai Ayabhai Khuman Valveman 01.04.1997 2. Letters Patent Appeal No.974 of 2023 Dhanjibhai Chhaganbhai Chudasama Valveman Valveman 3. Letters Patent Appeal No.975 of 2023 Chetan M Bhatt Valveman 01.01.2000 4. Letters Patent Appeal No.976 of 2023 Rasikbhai Govindbhai Makwana Street Light Attendant 01.06.1997 5. No Particulars Workman Name Post Date of Joining 1. Letters Patent Appeal No.973 of 2023 Alkubhai Ayabhai Khuman Valveman 01.04.1997 2. Letters Patent Appeal No.974 of 2023 Dhanjibhai Chhaganbhai Chudasama Valveman Valveman 3. Letters Patent Appeal No.975 of 2023 Chetan M Bhatt Valveman 01.01.2000 4. Letters Patent Appeal No.976 of 2023 Rasikbhai Govindbhai Makwana Street Light Attendant 01.06.1997 5. Letters Patent Appeal No.977 of 2023 Balkrushna Anturam Hariyani & Makhdum Umarbhai Dhandhukiya Valveman 01.08.1998 15.03.2000 6. Letters Patent Appeal No.978 of 2023 Govindbhai Nanjibhai Vaghela Fitter 01.01.2000 7. Letters Patent Appeal No.979 of 2023 Musabhai Kasambhai Jakhra Lineman/Valveman/Pumpman 01.06.1991 8. Letters Patent Appeal No.980 of 2023 Babubhai Bachubhai Sagar Valveman 01.03.1996 40. The Coordinate Bench, vide order dated 23.01.2024 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.973 of 2023 and allied matters, after examining the similar evidence and submissions advanced by the Nagarpalika, has recorded thus : - “3.4 The Industrial Tribunal examined the workman (Exh. 13). The workman was cross-examined by the first party employer. On behalf of the first party employer, witness named Harendrakumar Dhirajlal Joshi (Exh. 25) was examined, whom the workman crossexamined. The said Harendrakumar Dhirajlal Joshi deposed in common in all the reference cases. On the basis of the evidence and material on record, the Industrial Tribunal concluded that the witness of the first party employer had pleaded ignorance about the manner in which the workman was taken in service. He accepted that some of the workmen were regularised pursuant to the award of the Labour Court. 3.5. It was undisputedly submitted and could be elicited from the evidence that there were 40 to 42 water bores managed by the Municipality to supply water to the inhabitants of the town, which was the function and duty of the Municipality under the law. The findings in that regard was recorded by the Industrial Tribunal on the basis of the evidence of witness of the first party employer (Exh. 25). It was also revealed from his evidence that the work of valveman was to be of continuous nature for 24 hours. The water was supplied to the different areas of the town which was managed by the persons-workmen posted as valveman or pumpman etc., whose nomenclature was different but posted at bores. 3.6 A copy of the set-up of the Municipality was also available with the Industrial Tribunal (Exh. 23). The water was supplied to the different areas of the town which was managed by the persons-workmen posted as valveman or pumpman etc., whose nomenclature was different but posted at bores. 3.6 A copy of the set-up of the Municipality was also available with the Industrial Tribunal (Exh. 23). Also before the Industrial Tribunal was the resolution of the Municipality itself (Exh. 20). They revealed that the one post against every pump was sanctioned and accordingly, the persons were recruited and retained on the post of valveman. Those factual details went to show that there were sufficient number of pumps for which workmen were employed and that the work of supply of water from bore was of permanent nature. 3.7 The findings recorded by the Tribunal in each case were that the workman held the post of valveman for more that 15 to 18 years in each case. They continued as daily rated workman. The work was available and the post was also shown to be available in the set-up. Regarding availability of posts, a finding of fact came to be recorded by the Industrial Tribunal in judgment and award, which was revisited with by learned single Judge to reiterate and confirm the findings. 4. It was attempted in vain by learned advocate for the municipality that in the set-up of municipality, the posts were not available. In each of the cases, the Industrial Tribunal has considered the evidence regarding set-up. 4.1 xxx…. 4.2 Therefore, in all cases, the Tribunal has recorded categorical finding that the posts of valveman was available or at least equivalent post was available in the set-up of the municipality to be utilised for giving the appointment on regular post to the workman. It was recorded that the post of valveman was recognised with different nomenclatures and that all were equivalent posts, where the valveman were posted on duty. 4.3 Even otherwise, it is to be observed that keeping the workman in service giving them meager wages on daily rate basis had indeed no sanctity in law. It was the duty and obligation on the part of the Municipality to seek sanctioned set-up from the competent higher authority to have the posts of Valveman to accommodate the workman concerned to grant them the permanency benefits, when work performed by them was of perennial nature. 5. It was the duty and obligation on the part of the Municipality to seek sanctioned set-up from the competent higher authority to have the posts of Valveman to accommodate the workman concerned to grant them the permanency benefits, when work performed by them was of perennial nature. 5. Keeping the workmen on daily rated basis for unduly long by paying them lower wages and not getting the posts sanctioned at the same time, would amount to adopting unfair labour practice 5.1 Section 25T of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 contains prohibition against the employers resorting to unfair labour practice. It says that, “no employer or workman or trade union, whether registered under the Trade Unions Act 1926 or not, shall commit any unfair labour practice.” The expression unfair labour practice is defined in 2(ra) of the Industrial Disputes Act to mean any of the practices specified in the Fifth Schedule. When the Fifth Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act is seen, it enlists one of the unfair labour practices in item No.10 to be thus, “To employ workmen as ‘badlis’, casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years, with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen” 5.2 When the employer avoids to fill up the permanent posts even when posts are available and continues to employ workers on temporary or daily wage basis taking the same work from them, which is done by the regular workers and pays meager wages, it is a case of unfair labour practice. It is an exploitative conduct where the employer keeps his employees poorly paid unbearably long. Unfair labour practice is exploitation of workmen. This situation entitles the workman to be absorbed as permanent employee casting obligation in law on the employer. In view of facts and the factual findings recorded in para 5.1 hereinabove, such situation is obtained in the present case. 5.3 In Hari Nandan Prasad and Another vs. Employer I/R to Management of Food Corporation of India and Another [ (2014) 7 SCC 190 ], the Supreme Court emphasised the fine balancing of the rights of the employer employee in the matter of regularisation of the employees and granting temporary employees the benefit of permanency. 5.3 In Hari Nandan Prasad and Another vs. Employer I/R to Management of Food Corporation of India and Another [ (2014) 7 SCC 190 ], the Supreme Court emphasised the fine balancing of the rights of the employer employee in the matter of regularisation of the employees and granting temporary employees the benefit of permanency. Referring to some of its own the decisions, the Supreme Court observed that it was dependent on the facts of each case as to whether the order of regularisation is necessitated to advance justice to the daily rated workman or such benefit is to be denied where giving of such direction would infringe upon the employer’s rights. 5.3.1 The decisions in Maharashtra SRTC vs. Casteribe Rajya P. Karmchari Sanghatana [ (2009) 8 SCC 556 ] and U.P.Power Corporation Ltd. vs. Bijli Mazdoor Sangh and Others [ (2007) 5 SCC 755 ] were considered by the court in Hari Nandan Prasad (supra). Upon harmonised reading of these two decisions, it was stated that even where the posts are available, in absence of any unfair labour practice, the Labour Court cannot give direction for regularisation only on the ground of long service rendered by daily rated workman. 5.3.2 In Hari Nandan Prasad (supra), the Supreme Court, however, clarified that wherever the Labour Court or Tribunal have statutory power to grant relief to the workman it would include power to grant the relief of accruing status of permanency to the contractual employee or daily rated employee. It was in terms stated that where the employer is found to have indulged into any unfair labour practice, as defined in Industrial Disputes Act, the relief of regularisation could be extended. 5.3.3 The Supreme Court in Hari Nandan Prasad (supra) observed that in such set of facts, if regulariastion is not granted, it would even offend and violate the equality clause under Article 14 of the Constitution, “However, whenever it is found that similarly situated workmen are regularised by the employer itself under some scheme or otherwise and the workmen in question who have approached the Industrial/Labour Court are on a par with them, direction of regularisation in such cases may be legally justified, otherwise, non-regularisation of the leftover workers itself would amount to invidious discrimination qua them in such cases and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Thus, the Industrial adjudicator would be achieved the equality by upholding Article 14 of the Constitution, rather than violating this constitutional provision.” (para 39) 5.4 The Supreme Court pertinently observed in Regional Manager, State Bank of India vs. Raja Ram [ (2004) 8 SCC 164 ] as under, “In other words, before an action can be termed as an unfair labour practice it would be necessary for the Labour Court to come to a conclusion that the badlis, casuals and temporary workmen had been continued for years as badlis, casuals or temporary workmen, with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen. To this has been added the judicial gloss that artificial breaks in the service of such workmen would not allow the employer to avoid a charge of unfair labour practice. However, it is the continuity of service of workmen over a period of years which is frowned upon. (para 9) 5.4.1 The Apex Court proceeded to state, “Besides, it needs to be emphasised that for the practice to amount to unfair labour practice it must be found that the workman had been retained on a casual or temporary basis with the object of depriving the workman of the status and privileges of a permanent workman. There is no such finding in this case. Therefore, Item 10 in List I of the Fifth Schedule to the Act cannot be said to apply at all to the respondent's case and the Labour Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the respondent was, in the circumstances, likely to acquire the status of a permanent employee.” (para 9) 5.4.2 The decision in Raja Ram (supra), was followed in Regional Manager, State Bank of India vs. Rakesh Kumar Tewari (2006) 1 SCC 530 . 5.5 In Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (supra), the Supreme Court extensively referred to the law on the issue and after eloboratly discussing the law, the following propositions were laid down, “(i) Wide as they are, the powers of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court cannot extend to a direction to order regularisation, where such a direction would in the context of public employment offend the provisions contained in Article 14 of the Constitution; (ii) The statutory power of the Labour Court or Industrial Court to grant relief to workmen including the status of permanency continues to exist in circumstances where the employer has indulged in an unfair labour practice by not filling up permanent posts even though such posts are available and by continuing to employ workmen as temporary or daily wage employees despite their performing the same work as regular workmen on lower wages; (emphasis supplied) (iii) The power to create permanent or sanctioned posts lies outside the judicial domain and where no posts are available, a direction to grant regularisation would be impermissible merely on the basis of the number of years of service; (iv) Where an employer has regularised similarly situated workmen either in a scheme or otherwise, it would be open to workmen who have been deprived of the same benefit at par with the workmen who have been regularised to make a complaint before the Labour or Industrial Court, since the deprivation of the benefit would amount to a violation of Article 14; and (v) In order to constitute an unfair labour practice under Section 2(ra) read with Item 10 of the Vth Schedule of the ID Act, the employer should be engaging workmen as badlis, temporaries or casuals, and continuing them for years, with the object of depriving them of the benefits payable to permanent workmen.” (emphasis supplied) (para 34) 5.6 The test laid down in Raja Ram (supra) and Rakesh Kumar Tewari (supra) are satisfied in the facts of the present case. It could be emphatically said that the case of the workmen falls within the corners of observations and directions of the Supreme Court in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (supra), to be classified for grant of relief of regularisation, as the vice of unfair labour practice on part of the employer is established. It could be emphatically said that the case of the workmen falls within the corners of observations and directions of the Supreme Court in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (supra), to be classified for grant of relief of regularisation, as the vice of unfair labour practice on part of the employer is established. 5.7 In similar set of facts, yet another decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Jamjodhpur Nagarpalika versus Sunil Punjabhai Dhakecha in R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 200 Of 2023 in R/Special Civil Application No. 18202 Of 2017 decided on 25.07.2023 deserves to be noticed. The following paragraph was observed and held, “7. ….., it is evident from the perusal of the material on record, as also the findings given by the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge that the appellant Nagarpalika had indulged in unfair labour practice by continuing the respondent workman on temporary basis, though posts in the permanent set up were available. The act of appellant Nagarpalika in continuing the respondent workman on temporary basis on lower wages despite discharge of the same duties as that of a permanent employee in the permanent establishment is nothing but amounts to unfair labour practice. It is evident that the appellant Nagarpalika had continued the respondent workman for years together with the object of depriving him of the benefits payable to a permanent workman, though he was discharging the same duty as that of a permanent employee. No explanation could be offered by the appellant Nagarpalika either before the Labour Court or before the learned Single Judge or in this appeal as to why the respondent workman was continued on temporary basis on the post of Pipeline Repairer when the vacant post of Pipeline Repairer in the permanent establishment was available. No such record of permanent set up of appellant Nagarpalika was placed before the Labour Court and the findings recorded by the Labour Court that the witness or the appellant Nagarpalika admitted that there was a permanent set up but the detail thereof was not made available, could not be assailed by the learned counsel for the appellant Nagarpalika.” 5.8 The evidence regarding the set up shows that the posts in the set up were available and vacant. It is to be noted that in the present case, specific finding is recorded by the Industrial Tribunal and reiterated by learned single Judge that the treatment meted out to the workmen was unfair labour practice. The ratio of decisions of the Supreme court in Hari Nandan Pradad (supra), Raja Ram (supra), which the Supreme Court finally laying down the parameters in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (supra), are applicable to the facts obtaining in the present case. 5.9 While the factual and legal merits clearly discussed with elaboration as above, it is to be noted that in similar set of facts and circumstances, yet in another decision, the Division Bench of this court in Savarkundala Municipality vs. Shantilal Ambaliya, which was Letters Patent Appeal No. 1437 of 2022 decided on 27.10.2023, dealt with the issue dismissing the appeal. Learned advocates for the parties stated that the said judgment was carried before the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal No. 976 of 2024, which Special Leave to Appeal came to be dismissed on 16.1.2024.” 41. This Court has considered the engagement or employment of the similarly situated workmen in the Water Works Department. It is held that such employment would amount to unfair labour practice and is defined in Section 2(ra) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the I.D. Act). The Coordinate Bench has also considered Section 25T of the I.D. Act, which prohibits the employers resorting to unfair labour practice. Similar contention with regard to the non-availability of setup was also raised by the Municipality before the Coordinate Bench and the same was also dealt with. Unquestionably, in the present case the respondent workmen are juniors to those workmen/Valvemen/Pumpmen/Fitters, who are before the Coordinate Bench and in whose favour the Industrial Tribunal has passed the award of regularizing their services. The appellant – Savarkundla Municipality assailed the order passed by the Coordinate Bench by filing SLP (C) No.1606 of 2024. The Supreme Court has rejected the same by passing the following order dated 23.01.2024: - “We find no ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of. 42. The Supreme Court has rejected the same by passing the following order dated 23.01.2024: - “We find no ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of. 42. A contention has been raised by the Municipality that due to various awards passed by the Industrial Tribunal, a dicey situation is being faced in ordering regularization since the juniors are regularized, whereas the seniors are still waiting to be regularized. 43. The Municipality has no option but to implement the award, as confirmed by this Court. The benefit of regularization, as directed by the Industrial Tribunal and as confirmed by this Court, has to be extended to the workmen, who have the judgment and order in their favour. It is the Municipality, which has created a mess, wherein the issue of regularization of workmen, has resulted into heart burning amongst the employees. The Municipality has not pointed out the true set-up and the number of sanctioned posts. The evidence recorded by the Coordinate Bench relating to the setup does not reconcile with the details of the set-up which is shown to us. The Municipality is inconsistent in its evidence relating to the set-up, which was in existence at the relevant time and as on today. The appellant – Municipality, being the model Employer, has to take interest in resolving the issue and this Court cannot delve into the same, which is not considered either by the Industrial Tribunal or by the Coordinate Bench. The appellant – Municipality cannot shirk from its liability of implementing the awards and the orders passed by this Court by contending that the seniors are left out and the juniors are regularized in view of the directions issued by the Industrial Tribunal. From the tenor of the litigation, which this Court has been confronted, we find that the issue of regularization of the persons engaged by the Municipality for long period has not been dealt with by the Officers of the Municipality in the manner. The same should have been dealt with by pointing out the correct and true facts. The Coordinate Bench as well as the Industrial Tribunal has considered the evidence on record, which was presented before it and the Municipality was afforded full opportunity to present its case with appropriate evidence. The same should have been dealt with by pointing out the correct and true facts. The Coordinate Bench as well as the Industrial Tribunal has considered the evidence on record, which was presented before it and the Municipality was afforded full opportunity to present its case with appropriate evidence. It goes without saying that while examining the case of each of its employees, the Municipality cannot bypass the seniors and regularize juniors. 44. However, it is noticed by us that the Tribunal in some of the cases has also directed the appellant – Municipality to regularize the services of the employees after creating supernumerary posts and to confer the financial benefits from the date of award(s). In our considered opinion, such a direction cannot be issued by the Tribunal. It is settled legal proposition that the Labour Court or the High Court has no jurisdiction to direct the establishment to create supernumerary post and further direct regularization or appoint the employee in regular pay-scale merely because he/she has been continuously employed as such. The Supreme Court in a recent decision, in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. R.J.Pathan, 2022 (5) S.C.C. 394 has held thus:- “6. The order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition was in the year 2011. The order passed by the learned Single Judge was challenged by the respondents by way of LPA. In the year 2011, the Division Bench granted the interim relief and directed to maintain status quo and pursuant to the said interim order, the respondents were continued in service with the Government. In the year 2021, when the said LPA was taken up for further hearing, it was submitted on behalf of the respondents that as by now the respondents have worked for seventeen years, the State may be directed to absorb them in the Government and their services may be regularised. By observing that as the respondents have worked for a long time, i.e., for seventeen years, the Division Bench has directed the State to consider the cases of the respondents for absorption/regularisation and if required, by creating supernumerary posts. However, while issuing such a direction, the High Court has not at all considered the fact that the respondents were continued in service pursuant to the interim order passed by the High Court. However, while issuing such a direction, the High Court has not at all considered the fact that the respondents were continued in service pursuant to the interim order passed by the High Court. The Division Bench has also not appreciated the fact and/or considered the fact that the respondents were initially appointed for a period of eleven months and on a fixed salary and that too, in a temporary unit - "Project Implementation Unit", which was created only for the purpose of rehabilitation pursuant to the earthquake for "Post-Earthquake Redevelopment Programme". Therefore, the unit in which the respondents were appointed was itself a temporary unit and not a regular establishment. The posts on which the respondents were appointed and working were not the sanctioned posts in any regular establishment of the Government. Therefore, when the respondents were appointed on a fixed term and on a fixed salary in a temporary unit which was created for a particular project, no such direction could have been issued by the Division Bench of the High Court to absorb them in Government service and to regularise their services. The High Court has observed that even while absorbing and/or regularising the services of the respondents, the State Government may create supernumerary posts. Such a direction to create supernumerary posts is unsustainable. Such a direction is wholly without jurisdiction. No such direction can be issued by the High Court for absorption/regularisation of the employees who were appointed in a temporary unit which was created for a particular project and that too, by creating supernumerary posts. 7. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, it appears that what has weighed with the High Court was that the respondents were continued in service for a long time, i.e., seventeen years. However, the High Court has not considered that out of seventeen years, the respondents continued in service for ten years pursuant to the interim order passed by the High Court. Therefore, even considering the decision of this Court in the case of Umadevi (supra), the period for which the employees have continued in service pursuant to the interim order is to be excluded and not to be counted. The High Court has totally missed the aforesaid aspect. 8. Therefore, even considering the decision of this Court in the case of Umadevi (supra), the period for which the employees have continued in service pursuant to the interim order is to be excluded and not to be counted. The High Court has totally missed the aforesaid aspect. 8. Now, so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of Umadevi (supra) and the subsequent decision of this Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents is concerned, none of the aforesaid decisions shall be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. The purpose and intent of the decision in Umadevi (supra) was, (1) to prevent irregular or illegal appointments in the future, and (2) to confer a benefit on those who had been irregularly appointed in the past and who have continued for a very long time. The decision of Umadevi (supra) may be applicable in a case where the appointments are irregular on the sanctioned posts in regular establishment. The same does not apply to temporary appointments made in a project/programme. 8.1 Even in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari (supra) also, it was a case of irregularly appointed employees. Even otherwise, in view the facts and circumstances of Narendra Kumar Tiwari (supra), the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. The case before this Court was with respect to the employees working with the State of Jharkhand which was created only on 15.11.2000 and therefore it was contended on behalf of the irregularly appointed employees that no one could have completed ten years of service with the State of Jharkhand on the cut-off date of 10.04.2006, which was the cut-off date fixed under the relevant rules of the State of Jharkhand. 9. Even otherwise, it is to be noted that though not required, the State, instead of putting an end to the services of the respondents, graciously placed the respondents in the Indian Red Cross Society. No duty was cast upon the State to transfer them to another establishment in a case where it is found that the employees are appointed in a temporary unit and on a temporary contractual basis and on a fixed term salary and on closure of the temporary unit, their services are not required. No duty was cast upon the State to transfer them to another establishment in a case where it is found that the employees are appointed in a temporary unit and on a temporary contractual basis and on a fixed term salary and on closure of the temporary unit, their services are not required. However, the State Government was gracious enough to place the respondents in the Indian Red Cross Society, which the respondents did not accept. 10. From the impugned order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court it appears that the High Court has observed hereinabove that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the order of absorption and regularisation and if necessary, by creating supernumerary posts, will not be treated as a precedent in other cases. Even such a direction could not have been passed by the Division Bench of the High Court as there were no peculiar facts and circumstances which warranted the above observation. No such order of absorption and/or regularisation even if required for creating supernumerary posts and not to treat the same as precedent could have been passed by the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India”. 45. In some of the cases, the Tribunal has directed the Municipality to regularize the service by creating the posts. It is not in dispute that for creation of the post, the appellant – Municipality has to obtain approval from the State Government and until and unless, the approval is granted by the State Government, the appellant – Municipality cannot be directed to regularise the services of the employees, even if they have completed considerable years of service. It is contended on behalf of the appellant – Municipality that due to numerous litigations filed by various employees before the Tribunal and also before this Court, there is huge predicament on behalf of the appellant – Municipality to regularise the services of the juniors instead of seniors. We have already clarified the said aspect, hereinabove. It is always open for the appellant – Municipality to order regularization of services of the employees as per their requirement looking to their date of appointment and number of years, which they have put in. 46. We have already clarified the said aspect, hereinabove. It is always open for the appellant – Municipality to order regularization of services of the employees as per their requirement looking to their date of appointment and number of years, which they have put in. 46. The details of the employees, who have been ordered to be regularized in service by various awards, which are confirmed by this Court, and where the Special Leave to Appeal has been dismissed, reveal that the date of joining of such employees ranges from 1987 to 2003. In the present group of matter, the details of the respective employees which has been supplied by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, disclose that most of the respondent-employees have joined the service from 2005 to 2010 onwards. There are other set of respondent-employees, who are appointed between 1990 to 2002. Thus, the employees, who are ordered to be regularized by the Coordinate Bench will be similar or junior to some of the respondents. 47. Thus, the following directions are issued. A) The appellant – Municipality shall regularize the respondent-employees strictly considering the date of the appointment and number of years of service put in by each of the employees. B) The directions issued by the Tribunal and as confirmed by the learned Single Judge of directing the appellant – Municipality to regularize the services of the employees after creating posts, cannot be sustained, and is set aside. However in such cases, it will be open for the Municipality to approach the State Government for getting the posts sanctioned. After the State Government sanctions such post, it will be open for the Municipality to consider the cases of the employees for regularization, looking to their setup. 48. With these observations and clarifications, the present group of appeals stands disposed of. 49. As a sequel, all the connected civil applications also stand disposed of.