JUDGMENT : (M.K. Thakker, J.) 1. This petition is filed under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal in reference IT No.24 of 2016 dated 01.07.2024 whereby, the directions were issued to regularize the service of the present respondent on the post of Class-IV employee from the date of publication of award and previous period was directed to be consider for notional benefit. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent was initially appointed on part-time basis with Learning Development Centre. However, the Centre was closed and the present respondent was relieved from the service. Challenging the relieving of service, the reference came to be filed being the reference LCA No.445 of 2000 before the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad which was partly allowed vide judgment and award dated 12.02.2008 and the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent with continuity of service and 50% back wages. 2.1. Being aggrieved by the above judgment and award, the petition came to be filed before this Court being SCA No.10297 of 2008 which was partly allowed by this Court vide order dated 11.02.2013 and the award was modified to the extent of granting the benefit of back wages and petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent without back wages. In compliance with the order dated 11.02.2013, the petitioner has reinstated the respondent on 08.03.2013. The second reference came to be filed by the respondent herein, being reference IT No.24 of 2016 seeking regularization of the service from the 01.04.2013. Learned Industrial Tribunal after considering the evidence led and the submissions made by the learned advocate for the respective parties, has passed judgment and award directing the petitioner to regularize the service of the respondent from the date of publication of award and the notional benefit was granted for the period prior to that, which is subject matter of challenge before this Court. 3. Heard learned AGP Ms.Bhati for the State. 3.1. Learned AGP Ms.Bhati states that the respondent was appointed on a part time basis and he was continued in the service in pursuance to the award passed by the learned labour court therefore, he cannot claim the benefit of regularization on the post of Class-IV employee. 3. Heard learned AGP Ms.Bhati for the State. 3.1. Learned AGP Ms.Bhati states that the respondent was appointed on a part time basis and he was continued in the service in pursuance to the award passed by the learned labour court therefore, he cannot claim the benefit of regularization on the post of Class-IV employee. Learned AGP Ms.Bhati has relied on the communication dated 19.07.2019 and submitted that respondent himself has admitted that he was serving on part time basis and getting the monthly wages of Rs.14,800/-. Learned AGP Ms.Bhati submits that the pay slips which are annexed with the petition also suggests that he was paid according to the wages of the part time employee, therefore, the learned labour court has committed error in issuing the directions to regularize the service as a Class-IV employee. 3.2. Learned AGP Ms.Bhati has relied on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs Dayalal reported in 2011 (2) SCC 429 and Union of India Vs Imodevi reported in 2021 20 SCC 290 and submitted that only on satisfaction of condition i.e one is sanctioned post and other is appointment after following appropriate procedure, the benefit of regularization can be given to the employees. However, in the instant case, respondent was appointed without following recruitment process therefore, he cannot be regularized and be given the benefit of Class- IV employee. In view of the above submissions the learned AGP Ms.Bhati prays to set aside the impugned judgment and award and allow the petition. 4. Considering the submissions made by the learned AGP Ms.Bhati and the reasons assigned by the learned Industrial Tribunal, it transpires from the record that initial appointment was made of the present respondent with Learning Development Center which is part of the State of Gujarat. On closing down of the aforesaid Centre the respondent was relieved from the service and thereafter, pursuant to the award passed by the learned labour court in reference LCA No.445 of 2000 and the same was modified by this Court in SCA No.10297 of 2008 the respondent was reinstated on the original post without back wages. Reliance was placed on the salary slip which was produced before this Court from page no.40 onwards suggesting that he was part time employee. Reliance was placed on the salary slip which was produced before this Court from page no.40 onwards suggesting that he was part time employee. As per the said salary slip, he was paid Rs.220/- as daily wages and if the GR dated 06.09.2014 whereby, the wages are fixed is considered then it transpires that if the employee worked for more than four hours he would be entitled for the wages of Rs.220/-. Learned Industrial Tribunal observed in the impugned award that Exh.25 suggests that he worked continuously on each day and as full time employee he was continued for last 24 years. For continuing these many years, if the work which is of perennial in nature, taken from the employee, and he has been paid meager amount then it is nothing but unfair labour practice which is prohibited under the Industrial Disputes Act. 5. At this stage this Court would like to refer the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Jaseela Shaji Vs The Union of India and Ors. reported in 2024 9 SCC 327 . The relevant paragraphs are reproduced hereinbelow: “5. Having heard the arguments of both the sides, this Court believes that the essence of employment and the rights thereof cannot be merely determined by the initial terms of appointment when the actual course of employment has evolved significantly over time. The continuous service of the appellants in the capacities of regular employees, performing duties indistinguishable from those in permanent posts, and their selection through a process that mirrors that of regular recruitment, constitute a substantive departure from the temporary and scheme-specific nature of their initial engagement. Moreover, the appellants' promotion process was conducted and overseen by a Departmental Promotional Committee and their sustained service for more than 25 years without any indication of the temporary nature of their roles being reaffirmed or the duration of such temporary engagement being specified, merits a reconsideration of their employment status. 6. The application of the judgment in Umadevi (3)2 by the High Court does not fit squarely with the facts at hand, given the specific circumstances under which the appellants were employed and have continued their service. The reliance on procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued over a considerable period through continuous service. The reliance on procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued over a considerable period through continuous service. Their promotion was based on a specific notification for vacancies and a subsequent circular, followed by a selection process involving written tests and interviews, which distinguishes their case from the appointments through back door entry as discussed in Umadevi (3)2. 7. The judgment in Umadevi (3)2 also distinguished between "irregular" and "illegal" appointments underscoring the importance of considering certain appointments even if were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been made illegally if they had followed the procedures of regular appointments such as conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the present case. Para 53 of Umadevi (3) case is reproduced hereunder: (SCC . 42) ? 53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa, R.N. Nanjundappa and B.N. Nagarajans and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this b date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme” 6. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme” 6. After getting the work for 24 years in the opinion of this Court, it is not open for the petitioner to raise an objection that no recruitment procedure was followed and therefore, he cannot be regularized. During the cross examination of the witness of the present petitioner, it is admitted by the witness that there was a sanctioned post on which the present respondent was serving. Considering the availability of the post which was not filled up by the present petitioner and taking work from the respondent by paying poor wages, the learned Industrial Tribunal has rightly awarded the reference in favour of the respondent by granting the benefit of regularization. This court does not find any reasons to interfere with the above decision. 7. The decision which are relied by the learned AGP Ms.Bhati wherein, also it is held by Apex court that in absence of the sanctioned post no directions can be issued for regularization however, in the instant case it is admitted position that there is a sanctioned vacant post therefore, the decision would not come for the rescue of the present petitioner. Hence, this petition is required to be rejected. 8. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.