JUDGMENT : M.K. THAKKER, J. 1. Being aggrieved with the award passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara in Reference (IT) No. 101 of 2016 dated 08.09.2021 present petition is filed under Articles 14, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Facts arising for the consideration is that the respondent was offered work as a part time employee in the month of February 1989 and was paid remuneration as fixed by the Government of Gujarat for the part time employee. The respondent herein was rendering his service for six hours per day and the work which was done by the respondent was purely temporary, ad-hoc and part time wages as per the administrative requirement. The grievance was raised before the learned tribunal by way of filing the Reference praying to grant the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 for which the written statement was filed by the petitioner stating that the aforesaid Resolution pertaining to the Road and Building Department and as the petitioner was serving in the District Rural Development Agency, the same would not be applicable in the case of the present petitioner. Learned tribunal after assigning the reasons has allowed the Reference vide order dated 08.09.2021 and the petitioner was directed to grant the benefits to the respondent flowing from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court. 3. Heard the learned advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Dipak R. Dave for the respondent-workman. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw for the petitioner submits that the learned tribunal has mislead and misinterpreted the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 issued by the Government of Gujarat through Road and Building Department, which is meant for full time daily wager not for the part-timers and in absence of any policy framed by the Government of Gujarat for the part-timers, learned tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction by granting the benefits contrary to the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw submits that the Reference was preferred after a period of 13 years and on the ground of delay also the same was required to be rejected, however, the learned tribunal has committed an error in allowing the Reference and granting the benefits as per the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. 5. Per contra, present petition is opposed by the learned advocate Mr. 5. Per contra, present petition is opposed by the learned advocate Mr. Dipak Dave, who has submitted that to consider whether the respondent-workman was a part-timer or full timer, the nature of work and the services rendered by the respondent-workman is to be considered instead of considering the appointment letter. Learned advocate Mr. Dave submits that during the cross examination of the witness of the petitioner-management, it was admitted by the witnesses that the workman has served for 12 hours in a day and the nature of work that would consume whole day as he would come first and open the office and left the office after leaving of other employees. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent-workman was part time employee and therefore, not required to be granted benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Dave has drawn the attention of this Court with regard to the evidence produced below Exhibit 40 wherein the respondent-workman was ordered to serve from 09:30 to 18:10 the morning on rotation basis as well as he was given the election duty, there also he was ordered to serve during the night hours in addition to the morning duty. Learned advocate Mr. Dave submits that in fact the petitioner himself has recommended for the regularisation of the respondent-workman after considering the duties discharged by the respondent-workman. Learned advocate Mr. Dave submits that Exhibit 27 suggests that he had completed 21 to 25 days in a month and other similarly situated persons were regularized, who were named in the communication made by the present petitioner recommending the regularisation of their services. Considering the same, learned advocate has prayed to dismissed the petition and confirm the award passed by the learned labour court. 7. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, it is undisputed fact that the respondent-workman was appointed as a water bearer vide order dated 02.02.1985. On perusing the appointment order, it transpires that the working hours of the respondent workman are mentioned as six hours and wages were fixed of Rs.285/- per month. It is undisputed fact that the respondent-workman has served with the petitioner-management for more than 30 years, however, their services were not regularized. It is true that the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 is meant for the full time daily wager and not for the part-timer. 8. It is undisputed fact that the respondent-workman has served with the petitioner-management for more than 30 years, however, their services were not regularized. It is true that the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 is meant for the full time daily wager and not for the part-timer. 8. At this stage, the decision rendered by this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 125 of 2023 is required to be referred and relevant paragraphs are reproduced herein-below: “...... 5. In District Rural Development Agency (supra), what was recorded by learned single Judge was that though the work was taken on the respondent workman for full-time, he was paid wages as if he was part-timer. It was observed that the employment was for four to six hours only. The policy of the Government was that, it was stated, on completion of five years of service, the workman would be given the regular pay scale of Class IV employee, and on further completion of five years service, other benefits were to be extended which all were the benefits under Resolution dated 17.10.1988. All those considerations apply to the present case also. 5.1 While granting relief to the said petitioners, in District Rural Development Agency (supra), following observations were made by learned single Judge in Para 8 of the order which again apply to the present case: “There is additional dimension of this matter. The challenge of the employer is based on the misconception that on the Office Orders passed by it, the respondent was shown to have been working for a period of about 6 hours per day, though this might be continued for years and decades. Any employer, more particularly a public authority, cannot be heard to contend that work is there, but it is of six hours a day and the net effect thereof is that, for decades together the concerned workman is to be treated as a part-timer, and as the consequence thereof, he can never be given pay-scale of the said post. Any employer, more particularly a public authority, cannot be heard to contend that work is there, but it is of six hours a day and the net effect thereof is that, for decades together the concerned workman is to be treated as a part-timer, and as the consequence thereof, he can never be given pay-scale of the said post. Thus, to treat any workman for 6 hours on duty, and not for 8 hours, is less for the reasons that the requirement is for 6 hours, more an arrangement to deprive the workman of his legitimate dues.” 5.1.1 The court viewed such arbitrariness as unfair labour practice to proceed to observe in the same Para: “This circumstance, in no uncertain terms, would be an unfair labour practice and taking cognizance of it, the Government itself has adopted a policy as contained in Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, which was pressed into service by the respondent workman before the Labour Court. Independent of it, it was also the policy of the Government that on completion of three years of service, the cases of the part-timers were to be considered for regularisation as a full timer daily wagers.” 5.1.2 Taking into account all the above circumstances that operated in law, the petition was allowed. The decision stood confirmed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 837 of 2015 decided on 21.4.2015. 5.2 Furthermore, in the instant case the evidence which figures on record suggests to be able to fairly come to conclusion that the respondent workman was engaged as water-bearer and work was taken from him for whole day. Certificate dated 30.6.2017 was given by the Taluka Development Officer. The payment vouchers of salary to the respondent are on record. It reflected continuous payment on daily wages for the days of work. It was since 1997 that the workman had been in service. Even if the services were initially was to be treated as part-timer for the sake of it, the period of 25 years is fairly long period not to treat the petitioner to be entitled to the benefits. The work was perennial and the discharging of duty by the workman was for whole day. 6. Even if the services were initially was to be treated as part-timer for the sake of it, the period of 25 years is fairly long period not to treat the petitioner to be entitled to the benefits. The work was perennial and the discharging of duty by the workman was for whole day. 6. Learned single Judge has recorded in Para 5: “Considering the submissions made by learned counsels for the respective parties, perusal of the certificate as well as the pay slips would indicate that the petitioner was engaged as a daily wager and therefore to deny the benefits of the resolution dated 17.10.1988 on the ground that he was a part-timer is misconceived. Be that as it may. Even in the case of a part-timer as observed by this court in Special Civil Application No. 8468 of 2014 where of course under consideration was award of the Labour Court the principle that were considered by the court was extension of the benefits of the resolution dated 17.10.1988 to a part- timer.” 6.1 The reasons supplied and the conclusions drawn by learned single Judge could be said to be eminently proper in allowing the petition and granting relief to the petitioner. The judgment and order of learned single Judge is not liable to be interfered with in exercise of Letters Patent Jurisdiction.” 9. This Court has further held in Special Civil Application No. 3192 of 2019 as under: “5. Considering the submissions made by learned counsels for the respective parties, perusal of the certificate as well as the pay slips would indicate that the petitioner was engaged as a daily wager and therefore to deny the benefits of the resolution dated 17.10.1988 on the ground that he was a part-timer is misconceived. Be that as it may. Even in the case of a part-timer as observed by this court in Special Civil Application No. 8468 of 2014 where of course under consideration was award of the Labour Court the principle that were considered by the court was extension of the benefits of the resolution dated 17.10.1988 to a part-timer. The co-ordinate bench of this court held as under: “7. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, this Court finds as under. 7.1 It is not in dispute that, the initial date of appointment of the respondent workman was 01.02.1994. The co-ordinate bench of this court held as under: “7. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, this Court finds as under. 7.1 It is not in dispute that, the initial date of appointment of the respondent workman was 01.02.1994. It is also not in dispute that, it is the policy of the Government that a daily wager shall be granted certain benefits on his completing five years and ten years of his service. The said benefits are, being on the minimum of the regular pay scale of Class-IV employee, grant of yearly increments, leave etc. It is also not in dispute that, the respondent had completed five years of service, in the year 1999 and ten years of service in the year 2004, considering 01.02.1994 as his initial date of joining. It is under these circumstances, that he moved the Labour Court for these demands in the year 2006. Whether a part-timer, working for five to six hours a day as per the say of the employer, should be treated to be a daily wager or not, is not the point for determination in this case, because, whether the present respondent was working for six hours or more was a question of fact, which the Labour Court has already gone into. This Court finds that, the Labour Court has, after evaluating the evidence on record, found that though the initial date of the appointment of the respondent workman was 01.02.1994, the material before the Labour Court, to prove that he could not have been treated to be a part-timer, was only from 02.09.1996. So far not treating the respondent as a full timer for the period from 01.02.1994 to 01.09.1996 is concerned, that is not challenged by the workman, and therefore that aspect is not required to be gone into. The Labour Court has granted relief considering 02.09.1996 and not 01.02.1994. On this factual aspect, the finding recorded by the Labour Court does not call for any interference by this Court. 7.2 This Court further finds that, what was claimed by the workman from the Labour Court, and what is granted by the Labour Court, is the benefits flowing from the policy of the Government as contained in Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. 7.2 This Court further finds that, what was claimed by the workman from the Labour Court, and what is granted by the Labour Court, is the benefits flowing from the policy of the Government as contained in Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. It is also undisputable that, on the face of the finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court, as referred above, the respondent workman could not be denied the said benefits. Under these circumstances, no interference is required in the impugned award of the Labour Court and this petition is required to be dismissed. 8. There is additional dimension of this matter. The challenge of the employer is based on the misconception that on the Office Orders passed by it, the respondent was shown to have been working for a period of about 6 hours per day, though this might be continued for years and decades. Any employer, more particularly a public authority, cannot be heard to contend that work is there, but it is of six hours a day and the net effect thereof is that, for decades together the concerned workman is to be treated as a part-timer, and as the consequence thereof, he can never be given pay-scale of the said post. Thus, to treat any workman for 6 hours on duty, and not for 8 hours, is less for the reasons that the requirement is for 6 hours, more an arrangement to deprive the workman of his legitimate dues. This circumstance, in no uncertain terms, would be an unfair labour practice and taking cognizance of it, the Government itself has adopted a policy as contained in Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, which was pressed into service by the respondent workman before the Labour Court. Independent of it, it was also the policy of the Government that on completion of three years of service, the cases of the part-timers were to be considered for regularisation as a full timer daily wagers. This aspect is also considered by the Labour Court. Considering all these aspects, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that, the respondent was entitled to receive the benefits as per the policy of the Government dated 17.10.1988, on completion of five years of service as a daily wager. This aspect is also considered by the Labour Court. Considering all these aspects, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that, the respondent was entitled to receive the benefits as per the policy of the Government dated 17.10.1988, on completion of five years of service as a daily wager. This Court does not find any illegality in the said finding or the direction issued by the Labour Court in that regard, and therefore no interference is required by this Court. 9.1 So far the decision relied upon by the learned advocate for the petitioner employer in the case of Nand Kumar (supra) is concerned, there cannot be any dispute with regard to preposition of law enunciated therein, however, at the same time, the decision of Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of Harinand Prasad (supra) as relied by learned advocate for the respondent workman, is also required to be kept in view. Para-34 of the said judgment lays down the law that, wherever it is found that a workman is denied certain benefits under some scheme of the employer, and on approach, the Labour Court issues direction to grant that benefit, it cannot be termed to be illegal. By giving such a direction, the Labour Court would be achieving the equality by upholding Article 14, rather than violating this constitutional provision. Thus, the decision of Nand Kumar (supra) will not take the case of the petitioner employer any further, in the present case. 9.2 Further, while considering the applicability of the very Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, the Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board and others vs. PWD Employees Union and others, also took into consideration the decision in the case of Nand Kumar (supra), and ultimately upheld the grant of benefit under the said policy dated 17.10.1988. On this additional ground also, the reliance on the decision of Nand Kumar (supra) is not of any help to the petitioner employer. 10. Attempt is also made on the part of the employer that, the very engagement of service of the respondent was illegal since no procedure at the relevant time was followed. This contention needs to be rejected because an employer cannot be permitted to contend that, it is he who had to do something which he had not done, and therefore the workman is not entitled to relief. This contention needs to be rejected because an employer cannot be permitted to contend that, it is he who had to do something which he had not done, and therefore the workman is not entitled to relief. Reference in this regard can be made to the decision of Honourable the Supreme Court of India in the case of Bhartiya Seva Samaj Trust (supra), more particularly Para-28 thereof. 11. Viewing from any angle, this Court finds that, none of the contentions of the petitioner employer can be accepted and no interference is required in the impugned award of the Labour Court and the petition needs to be dismissed. 12. For the reasons recorded above, this petition is dismissed. The impugned award passed by the Labour Court, Vadodara in the Reference (Demand) (LCV) No. 1 of 2006 dated 11.03.2014 is directed to be given effect to, within a period of three months from today. Notice is discharged. No order as to costs.” 6. The aforesaid order was confirmed by the Division Bench of this court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 837 of 2015.” 10. In the decision rendered by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 8468 of 2014 it was observed by this Court as under: “7. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, this Court finds as under: 7.1 It is not in dispute that, the initial date of appointment of the respondent workman was 01.02.1994. It is also not in dispute that, it is the policy of the Government that a daily wager shall be granted certain benefits on his completing five years and ten years of his service. The said benefits are, being on the minimum of the regular pay scale of Class-IV employee, grant of yearly increments, leave etc. It is also not in dispute that, the respondent had completed five years of service, in the year 1999 and ten years of service in the year 2004, considering 01.02.1994 as his initial date of joining. It is under these circumstances, that he moved the Labour Court for these demands in the year 2006. It is also not in dispute that, the respondent had completed five years of service, in the year 1999 and ten years of service in the year 2004, considering 01.02.1994 as his initial date of joining. It is under these circumstances, that he moved the Labour Court for these demands in the year 2006. Whether a part-timer, working for five to six hours a day as per the say of the employer, should be treated to be a daily wager or not, is not the point for determination in this case, because, whether the present respondent was working for six hours or more was a question of fact, which the Labour Court has already gone into. This Court finds that, the Labour Court has, after evaluating the evidence on record, found that though the initial date of the appointment of the respondent workman was 01.02.1994, the material before the Labour Court, to prove that he could not have been treated to be a part-timer, was only from 02.09.1996. So far not treating the respondent as a full timer for the period from 01.02.1994 to 01.09.1996 is concerned, that is not challenged by the workman, and therefore that aspect is not required to be gone into. The Labour Court has granted relief considering 02.09.1996 and not 01.02.1994. On this factual aspect, the finding recorded by the Labour Court does not call for any interference by this Court. 7.2 This Court further finds that, what was claimed by the workman from the Labour Court, and what is granted by the Labour Court, is the benefits flowing from the policy of the Government as contained in Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. It is also undisputable that, on the face of the finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court, as referred above, the respondent workman could not be denied the said benefits. Under these circumstances, no interference is required in the impugned award of the Labour Court and this petition is required to be dismissed. 8. There is additional dimension of this matter. The challenge of the employer is based on the misconception that on the Office Orders passed by it, the respondent was shown to have been working for a period of about 6 hours per day, though this might be continued for years and decades. 8. There is additional dimension of this matter. The challenge of the employer is based on the misconception that on the Office Orders passed by it, the respondent was shown to have been working for a period of about 6 hours per day, though this might be continued for years and decades. Any employer, more particularly a public authority, cannot be heard to contend that work is there, but it is of six hours a day and the net effect thereof is that, for decades together the concerned workman is to be treated as a part-timer, and as the consequence thereof, he can never be given pay-scale of the said post. Thus, to treat any workman for 6 hours on duty, and not for 8 hours, is less for the reasons that the requirement is for 6 hours, more an arrangement to deprive the workman of his legitimate dues. This circumstance, in no uncertain terms, would be an unfair labour practice and taking cognizance of it, the Government itself has adopted a policy as contained in Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, which was pressed into service by the respondent workman before the Labour Court. Independent of it, it was also the policy of the Government that on completion of three years of service, the cases of the part-timers were to be considered for regularisation as a full timer daily wagers. This aspect is also considered by the Labour Court. Considering all these aspects, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that, the respondent was entitled to receive the benefits as per the policy of the Government dated 17.10.1988, on completion of five years of service as a daily wager. This Court does not find any illegality in the said finding or the direction issued by the Labour Court in that regard, and therefore no interference is required by this Court. 9.1 So far the decision relied upon by the learned advocate for the petitioner employer in the case of Nand Kumar (supra) is concerned, there cannot be any dispute with regard to preposition of law enunciated therein, however, at the same time, the decision of Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of Harinand Prasad (supra) as relied by learned advocate for the respondent workman, is also required to be kept in view. Para-34 of the said judgment lays down the law that, wherever it is found that a workman is denied certain benefits under some scheme of the employer, and on approach, the Labour Court issues direction to grant that benefit, it cannot be termed to be illegal. By giving such a direction, the Labour Court would be achieving the equality by upholding Article 14, rather than violating this constitutional provision. Thus, the decision of Nand Kumar (supra) will not take the case of the petitioner employer any further, in the present case. 9.2 Further, while considering the applicability of the very Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, the Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Others vs. PWD Employees Union and Others, also took into consideration the decision in the case of Nand Kumar (supra), and ultimately upheld the grant of benefit under the said policy dated 17.10.1988. On this additional ground also, the reliance on the decision of Nand Kumar (supra) is not of any help to the petitioner employer. 10. Attempt is also made on the part of the employer that, the very engagement of service of the respondent was illegal since no procedure at the relevant time was followed. This contention needs to be rejected because an employer cannot be permitted to contend that, it is he who had to do something which he had not done, and therefore the workman is not entitled to relief. Reference in this regard can be made to the decision of Honourable the Supreme Court of India in the case of Bhartiya Seva Samaj Trust (supra), more particularly Para-28 thereof.” 11. Division Bench of this Court has observed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 734 of 2021 as under: “6. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the judgment dated 20.06.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the award dated 15.01.2018 of the Labour Court, Godhra in Reference (Demand) No. 33 of 1999 it is undisputed fact that the respondent workman was serving the present appellant from 16.07.1985 and at no point of time either before the Labour Court or before the learned Single Judge, the length of service of the respondent workman was questioned. Even the Labour Court has observed that the present appellant admitted before the Labour court that the respondent workman was serving under the present appellant from 16.07.1985. It was also not in dispute that the respondent workman worked for more than 240 days in each year. The only ground to deny the benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the respondent workman was that vide subsequent circular dated 30.03.1995, the benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 were confined only to the daily wagers of Roads and Buildings Department, which according to us is no ground to deny benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the respondent workman as after the aforesaid circular dated 30.03.1995 much water has been flown in all these years. The law with regard to Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 is no more res integra and the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court have in catena of decisions reiterated the same. Having noticed that no other material was ever produced before the Labour Court or before the learned Single Judge which may compel us to take a contrary view, we are not in a position to disagree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. We find that the learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the material available on record and after examining the impugned award dated 15.01.2018 has arrived at a just and proper conclusion that the respondent workman is entitled and eligible to consequential benefits and arrears as per the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge.” 12. Considering the above decisions, it transpires that on the basis of appointment letter to decide whether workman is part-timer or full timer is misconception. The test should be on the basis of nature of work and the other evidence which may be placed on record by either party. 13. From the evidence placed on record more particularly, Exhibits 36, 37, 38, 39 and 40 it reveals that the workman has worked for more than 12 hours per day, therefore, denial of the benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 on the ground that the respondent-workman is part-timer is misconceived. 13. From the evidence placed on record more particularly, Exhibits 36, 37, 38, 39 and 40 it reveals that the workman has worked for more than 12 hours per day, therefore, denial of the benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 on the ground that the respondent-workman is part-timer is misconceived. The duty allotted to the respondent- workman as per the appointment letter is that of a water bearer, which involves cleaning the office, serving of water as well as during the cross examination, it is admitted that in addition to the above duties, he was allotted the election duty, Bank work, delivering the mails, etc. In these circumstances, the respondent-workman cannot be deprived from the said benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. Hence, this petition does not require to be entertained. 14. In view of the above observations, this petition is dismissed. The impugned award dated 08.09.2021 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara in Reference (IT) No. 101 of 2016 is hereby confirmed.