JUDGMENT : BHARGAV D. KARIA, J. 1. These petitions are arising out of the award dated 21.08.2021 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) No. 44 of 2006. 2. Special Civil Application No. 3434/2013 is filed by the workmen working on the post of Ward boy, Maid Servant, Sweeper, clerk, Computer Operator, X-ray technician and Assistant Laboratory Technician in Mahuva hospital run by Mahuva Nagarpalika at the relevant time and thereafter taken over by the State Government with a prayer to continue the workmen in the current service as Hospital staff and to absorb them in hospital staff for their long service of time period extending from 14 to 25 years in the same hospital being taken over by the Government of Gujarat from Mahuva Nagarpalika with the status of General Hospital. 3. This Court in Special Civil Application No. 3434/2013 by order dated 22.03.2013 granted status-quo regarding the service conditions of 29 petitioners which has continued till date. It was prayed to direct the Tribunal to proceed with Reference (IT) No. 44 of 2006 which was preferred by the petitioner for their demand of permanent employment. This Court vide order dated 16.12.2015 directed the Tribunal to consider the request of the petitioner for expeditious hearing of Reference (IT) No. 44 of 2006. 4. Brief facts of the case are that by Resolution No. 4 dated 9.08.2002 passed by the Chairman of Medical Board, appointment of 33 workmen working in the hospital run by Mahuva Nagarpalika was extended for further three months. The Collector by order dated 19.12.2002 stayed the execution of Resolution No. 4 and the Collector thereafter by order dated 22.07.2003 directed the Nagarpalika to forward the proposal for additional sanction since the posts were concerning to the hospital and continued the stay granted on 19.12.2002. 4.1 Being aggrieved, 33 workmen approached this Court by preferring Special Civil Application No. 11818/2003 challenging the order dated 22.7.2003 passed by the Collector against the termination of their employment. This Court initially granted stay but by order dated 17.11.2005 dismissed the petition. 4.2 Being aggrieved, 33 workmen preferred LPA No. 1634/2005 challenging the order dated 17.11.2005. By order dated 21.1.2014, LPA was disposed of without entering into the merits on the statement made by the workmen that they have already approached the Industrial Tribunal. However, the workmen never challenged the termination order which is confirmed before this Court. 4.2 Being aggrieved, 33 workmen preferred LPA No. 1634/2005 challenging the order dated 17.11.2005. By order dated 21.1.2014, LPA was disposed of without entering into the merits on the statement made by the workmen that they have already approached the Industrial Tribunal. However, the workmen never challenged the termination order which is confirmed before this Court. 4.3 Workmen also filed Special Civil Application Nos. 9739/2006, 9740/2006 and 9770/2006 seeking regularisation of their service. This Court by order dated 4.05.2006 directed the workmen to approach the Director of Municipalities or Industrial Tribunal. 4.4 Workmen therefore, filed Reference (IT) No. 44 of 2006 for regularisation without challenging the order of termination. 4.5 Pursuant to the directions given by this Court, the workmen also approached the Director of Municipalities who by order dated 12.12.2008 rejected the application for regularisation filed by the workmen. 4.6 The State Government by resolution dated 14.09.2012 took over the administration of Mahuva hospital from Mahuva Nagarpalika including the staff and with effect from 01.05.2013, charge of the hospital rests with the State Government. 4.7 Thereafter, workmen filed Special Civil Application No. 3434/2013 seeking direction against the Government to regularise them in service. 4.8 By order dated 04.02.2014, status- quo was granted by directing the Government authority to pay salaries to the workmen during the pendency of this petition. 4.9 This Court by order dated 4.3.2014 in Civil Application No. 1100/2014 in Special Civil Application No. 3434/2014 after considering the facts and circumstances, directed the State Government to pay the salary of the workmen and to continue to pay them regularly till the pendency of the petition. 4.10 It appears that thereafter the Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal, Bhavnagar decided Reference (IT) No. 44 of 2006 by judgment dated 21.08.2021 by issuing the following directions: “(i) To pay regular pay scale, dearness allowance and other allowances as paid to other permanent employees from the date of filing of reference; (ii) All the workmen referred in the award (except at S. No. 29) to be in continued on their posts on completion of 7 years of their initial appointment and period of initial 7 years shall be considered notional for the purpose of seniority, promotion, gratuity and retirement benefits. (iii) The retired employees no. 10, 12 and 30 of the list shall be entitled to all the benefits till the date of their retirement as per the award. (iii) The retired employees no. 10, 12 and 30 of the list shall be entitled to all the benefits till the date of their retirement as per the award. (iv) The legal heirs of the deceased employees at S. No. 5, 9, 22 and 27 would be entitled to receive the amount that may accrue to them as per the award after verification and satisfaction of petitioner municipality. (v) All three opposite parties shall jointly and severally liable and responsible to satisfy the award. (vi) The petitioner Municipality shall implement the award within 30 days.” 4.11 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid directions, Mahuva Nagarpalika preferred Special Civil Application No. 10690 of 2022 and the State Government has preferred Special Civil Application 1060 of 2023. 5. All the three petitions were heard together on 8.11.2023 and kept for dictation of judgment on 30.11.2013. However, due to paucity of time by order dated 22.12.2023 same were reserved for judgment. 6. Rule returnable in Special Civil Application No 10690/2022 and Special Civil Application No. 1060/2023. Learned advocate Ms. Sangita Pahwa for Thakkar and Pahwa Advocates waives service of notice of rule on behalf of Mahuva Nagarpalika, learned advocate Mr. Divyesh C. Sejpal waives service of notice of rule on behalf of Saurashtra Shramik Sangh and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Megha Chitaliya waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent State. 7. Learned advocate Ms. Sangita Pahwa for Mahuva Nagarpalika submitted that the Industrial Tribunal has committed an error by allowing the reference in favour of the workmen to consider the casual employees as permanent on their present post after completion of period of seven years of their initial appointment in service inasmuch as there is no sanctioned set-up of Mahuva hospital which was later taken over by the State Government by Government Resolution dated 14.09.2012 along with the staff of hospital. It was submitted that though the order was passed on 12.12.2008 for sanctioning of 52 vacancies in the hospital by the Director of Municipalities, the State Government has not sanctioned such post till date. It was submitted that though the order was passed on 12.12.2008 for sanctioning of 52 vacancies in the hospital by the Director of Municipalities, the State Government has not sanctioned such post till date. Reliance was placed on the decision in case of Harinandan Prasad and Another vs. Employer I/R to Management of Food Corporation of India and Another, (2014) 7 SCC 190 wherein it is held that it would be difficult to give the relief of reinstatement to the persons who were engaged as daily wagers and whose services were terminated in a distant past and when the termination is held to be illegal only on technical ground of not ad-hereing to the provisions of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was submitted that the extension granted to the temporary appointment of the petitioner for three months was stayed by the Collector in 2002 and thereafter, Special Civil Application No. 11818/2003 filed by the workmen was also dismissed. Letters Patent Appeal was also disposed of. The termination of workmen of Mahuva hospital has achieved finality and the workmen are continuing on the posts only on the basis of interim order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 3434/2013. 7.1 It was further submitted that the entire administration including staff and all infrastructure of Mahuva hospital is taken over by the State Government in the year 2012 and with effect from 01.05.2013, Mahuva Nagarpalika has no control over Mahuva hospital and therefore, liability of payment of wages, if any, prior to 2012 would also vest with the State Government as the hospital was taken over with the staff which includes the liability which may accrue qua such staff which was part of the hospital. Reliance was also placed on the following decisions: (1) Mahuva Municipality vs. Maheshbhai Jinabhai Sarvayya LPA No. 1036 of 2016, dated 06.03.2018 (2) The Government of Tamil Nadu and Another vs. Tamil Nadu Makkal Nala Paniyalargal and Others, 2023 Live Law (SC) 294 (3) Vibhuti Shankar Pandey vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, 2023 Live Law (SC) 91 (4) Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Umadevi and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 8. Learned AGP Ms. Megha Chitaliya assailed the impugned order relying upon the decision of Apex Court in case of Harinandan Prasad and Another (supra) and adopted the arguments of learned advocate Ms. Learned AGP Ms. Megha Chitaliya assailed the impugned order relying upon the decision of Apex Court in case of Harinandan Prasad and Another (supra) and adopted the arguments of learned advocate Ms. Sangita Pahwa with regard to the directions issued by the Industrial Court for regularising the services of the workmen of Mahuva hospital. 8.1 It was submitted that there is no vested right of the workmen to be regularised as their services are already terminated with effect from 2002 and they are continued in service pursuant to the order passed by this Court in the pending litigation. 9. Learned advocate Mr. Divyesh Sejpal appearing for the respondent Union representing the workmen of Mahuva hospital submitted that the appointment of workmen ranges from 1988 to 1999 and since then the workmen are continuously discharging their duties as per the findings arrived at by the Industrial Court in the impugned order after considering the entire evidence. It was submitted that all the workmen have worked for more than 240 days in every year without payment of sufficient salary by the Mahuva Nagarpalika at the relevant time and therefore, the Labour Court has rightly held that there was a breach of provisions of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and workmen are entitled to regularisation as per the provisions of resolution dated 17.10.1988. Reliance was placed on Division Bench decision of this Court in case of Arjanbhai Virabhai Bambhania v. State of Gujarat (Judgment dated 27.08.2021 passed in Civil Application No. 3910/2019 in LPA No. 35122 of 2019 and allied matters) wherein the Division Bench has granted the benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the employees who have worked for more than seven years. 9.1 Reliance was also placed on the decision of Apex Court in case of Bhartiya Seva Samaj Trust through President and Another vs. Yogeshbhai Ambalal and Another, (2012) 9 SCC 310 , wherein it is held that the Court should not set aside the illegal order if its effect is to revive another illegal order since in such eventuality, illegality would be perpetuated and award a premium to undeserving person. 9.2 Learned advocate Mr. Sejpal referred to and relied upon the order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 9739/2006 to submit that the petitioner has approached the Director of Municipality as per the direction issued by this Court. 9.2 Learned advocate Mr. Sejpal referred to and relied upon the order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 9739/2006 to submit that the petitioner has approached the Director of Municipality as per the direction issued by this Court. The petitioner has thereafter made a representation before the Director of Municipalities where he accepts that workmen are working for more than 10 years and there are 52 vacancies but the Municipality has not done anything to fill up the post. It was also pointed out that the workmen also agreed to withdraw the Industrial Reference if the posts are filled up, but the same process is not done by the respondent State Government till date and there are no rules and regulations of the Municipality for appointment or promotions. In spite of directions issued by the Director of Municipalities in the year 2008, nothing was done by the State or the Municipalities since then. It was therefore, submitted that no interference be made in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Industrial Court. 9.3 Learned advocate Mr. Sejpal also referred to order dated 29.03.2022 passed by the Industrial Court Bhavnagar to replace the word “permanent” in place of “continued” in the award in page no. 85 in third line to submit that the Industrial Court has rightly passed the order of granting permanency to workmen who are working since more than 10 years in the hospital. 10. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having considered the submissions made by both the sides, it appears that the Tribunal has passed the impugned order by considering the evidence on record holding as under: “38. Considering the entire evidence on record as well as the citations cited by both the parties as mentioned above, it becomes very clear that all the employees of the second party are engaged on daily wager basis and they are serving with the first party No. 1 since last many years like permanent employees. They have worked more than 240 days in every year though they are not paying sufficient salary by the first party No. 1. Their presence is marked in muster roll but they are not given copy of muster roll or pay sleep and also not given the benefits given to permanent employees with ulterior motive. They have worked more than 240 days in every year though they are not paying sufficient salary by the first party No. 1. Their presence is marked in muster roll but they are not given copy of muster roll or pay sleep and also not given the benefits given to permanent employees with ulterior motive. That they were continued as daily wagers for more than 15 years without the intervention of any court and without the protection of any interim orders of any court or tribunal. All the workers worked for considerable number of years as workers. The exhibit 44, 62, 75, 119 and 125 makes clear that there are many sanctioned posts vacant since 2008 and prior to that. The Government took over management of Hospital in the year 2012-2013, however all the sanctioned post are not filled up i.e. are vacant and other employees are appointed in spite of running proceedings of the litigations. It is also true that the employees had worked for a long time. They had been paid wages but they did not hold any legal posts, but only because of they worked for a long time the same by itself would not be a ground for directing regularization for service. The employees are the same who are continued till today without break even for a single day and the employees have worked for one employer. Hence it is established that there is continuity of service without a break or with short breaks that do not interrupt the continuity of employment. Moreover, there is a statutory presumption in favour of continuous service. Unless the contrary is shown, the employee is presumed to have continuous employment in accordance with the Employment Rights Act (ERA) 1996 and the continuity will be preserved even if the employee is not required to perform any work. Here in the present case no contrary against the evidence of the second party is shown and hence it should be presumed in favour of the employees. xxx xxx xxx (40) When a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagement as a casual worker and the engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognized by the relevant rules or procedure, he is aware of the consequences of the appointment being temporary or casual in nature. xxx xxx xxx (40) When a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagement as a casual worker and the engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognized by the relevant rules or procedure, he is aware of the consequences of the appointment being temporary or casual in nature. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post when an appointment to the post could be made only by following a proper procedure for selection in the cases concerned. Therefore, the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be successfully advanced by temporary or casual employees. The employees before us were engaged on daily wages in the department concerned that was made known to them. It is not the case of the second party that the wage agreed upon was not being paid. Those who are working on daily wages formed a class by themselves, they cannot claim that they are discriminated as against those who have been regularly recruited on the basis of the relevant rules. No right can be founded on an employment on daily wages to claim that such employee should be treated on a par with a regularly recruited candidate, and made permanent in employment, even assuming that the principle could be invoked for claiming equal wages for equal work. This Tribunal has to keep in mind the concept of “equal pay for equal work” which is applied in various decisions and has laid down the parameters for the application of that principle. xxx xxx xxx (43) It transpire that Casual employees are continued as such for number of years is unfair labour practice. If the practice of the employing workmen on a casual or temporary basis would be allowed, it would amount to license to exploit and would fly in the face of every constitutional aim, ideal and obligation. It is within the knowledge of this Tribunal that as per deposition given by Jigneshbhai Rashmikant Shah working in Mahuva Nagar-Palika in another case, one daily workman was engaged as daily wager in the year 2003 who was made permanent in the year 2010 and hence keeping in mind the same incident the workers of the second party would be entitled for the same. The workers of the second party would be considered from the date of joining casual service till the date of fling of the present reference as notional. Hence all the employees are entitled to be considered as permanent employees of the original owner - the 1st party on the post allotted to them after completion of seven years from entering in the service but shall be entitled to the arrears from the date of filing of the present reference with all the pay, allowances, seniority and other consequential benefits. These type of benefits are not given to the employees by the employer which amounts to Unfair Labour Practice. It is true that all the employees were continued on casual service since long and hence generally continued casualization of service of workmen amounts to unfair labour practice as defined in Item No. 10 in part 1 of the Fifth Schedule of the Act. The very essence and concept of unfair labour practice is the angle and anvil of section 25T and 25U is that in the industrial sector there is complete bar to appoint the casual appointee for a continuous period with the object to deprivation the status and privileges of permanent workmen and as a coercive measures to avoid such contingency. xxx xxx xxx (44) The records further show that the first party No. 1 had occasionally passed resolutions for making permanent, releasing promotions and making posting of the employees working under the establishment of Mahuva Nagar-Palika on daily wages basis which are produced vide exhibits 50, 52, 54 and 58. Exhibit 50 shows that 16 temporary employees including daily wagers working under the establishment of the first party No. 1 were promoted and posted as marked in that document by a resolution dated 02-08-1995. Exhibit 52 shows that 18 temporary employees including daily wagers working under the establishment of the first party No. 1 were promoted and posted as marked in that document by a resolution dated 08-08-1995. Exhibit 54 shows that 28 temporary employees including daily wagers working under the establishment of the first party No. 1 were promoted and posted as marked in that document by a resolution dated 27- 09-1995. Exhibit 54 shows that 28 temporary employees including daily wagers working under the establishment of the first party No. 1 were promoted and posted as marked in that document by a resolution dated 27- 09-1995. By the same way Exhibit 58 shows that 37 temporary employees including daily wagers working under the establishment of the first party No. 1 were promoted and posted as marked in that document by a resolution dated 27-09-1995. Thus the first party no. 1 had passed four resolutions within two months and promoted the temporary employees including daily wagers working under its establishment, however, the first party did not pass resolution so far as the question of making permanent and giving benefits to the present employees are concerned for the reasons best known to the first party No. 1 and by doing so the first party deprived the employees of the first party from getting their rights, and thereby the first party has adopted unfair labour practice resulting into breach of provisions of Industrial Disputes act. (45) It transpire that Casual employees are continued as such for number of years is unfair labour practice. If the practice of the employing workmen on a casual or temporary basis would be allowed, it would amount to license to exploit and would fly in the face of every constitutional aim, ideal and obligation. It is within the knowledge of this Tribunal that as per deposition given by Jigneshbhai Rashmikant Shah working in Mahuva Nagar-Palika in another case, one daily workman was engaged as daily wager in the year 2003 who was made permanent in the year 2010 and hence keeping in mind the same incident the workers of the second party would be entitled for the same. The workers of the second party would be considered from the date of joining casual service till the date of filing of the present reference as notional. Hence all the employees are entitled to be considered as permanent employees of the original owner - the 1st party on the post allotted to them after completion of seven years from entering in the service but shall be entitled to the arrears the date of filing of the present reference with all the pay, allowances, seniority and other consequential benefits. These type of benefits are not given to the employees by the employer which amounts to Unfair Labour Practice. These type of benefits are not given to the employees by the employer which amounts to Unfair Labour Practice. All the employees of the second party have not been given benefit of the scheme contained in the Resolution dated 17-10-1988 as stated above and thereby the employees of the second party, though they were entitled, are deprived form getting receivable benefits and thereby the employer has adopted unfair labour practice. It is true that all the employees were continued on casual service since long and hence generally continued casualization of service of workmen amounts to unfair labour practice as defined in item No. 10 in part 1 of the Fifth Schedule of the Act. The very essence and concept of unfair labour practice is the angle and anvil of section 25T and 25U is that in the industrial sector there is complete bar to appoint the casual appointee for a continuous period with the object to deprivation the status and privileges of permanent workmen and as a coercive measures to avoid such contingency.” 11. Division Bench of this Court in case of Arjanbhai Virabhai Bambhania (supra) has held as under: “34. We have considered the submissions. The argument advanced by Shri Trivedi today is a day late and a dollar short. May be if such argument had been advanced at an appropriate time, the Court would have examined in that light. But reopening the whole issue today would result into severe discrimination and would be very unjust to the present group of employees who are engaged prior to the employees in the case of Atul C. Soni (supra) which was carried upto the Supreme Court. The learned Single Judge has examined this aspect of the matter in great detail and has referred to the relevant judgments which has resulted into grant of the benefits on the grounds of equality and parity, rather the present employees are holding better case than the case of the employees in case of Atul C. Soni (supra). We may also note here that in the case of Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas (supra), the issue regarding permanency and regularization was considered and the judgment went upto the Supreme Court to be affirmed not once but twice. Paragraph 7 and its sub- paragraphs, 8, 9 and 10 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge contain detailed discussion on this aspect. The same are reproduced hereunder: “7. Paragraph 7 and its sub- paragraphs, 8, 9 and 10 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge contain detailed discussion on this aspect. The same are reproduced hereunder: “7. This takes to the relief for extension of benefits of: (i) Transport Allowance. (ii) Travelling Allowance. (iii) Transfer Travelling Allowance. (iv) Leave Encashment. (v) Leave Travel Concession on the basis of Resolution dated 17th October, 1988, it is the case of the petitioners that though the said benefits are not expressly mentioned in the Resolution dated 17th October, 1988, they are part of the permanency benefits which are available under the Resolution and when these benefits are available to homogeneous class of permanent employees, the petitioners should also be granted the same. 7.1 This issue cannot be said to be res integra in view of decision in Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas (supra). Those were the petitioners who were daily-rated employees, regularise in service under the Resolution dated 17th October, 1988 and all benefits as regular government servants were extended to them except the leave encashment, leave travel concession, etc. They had approached this Court with grievance that by not extending the said benefits, the authorities had discriminated them, as though they were accorded permanency benefits, it was minus of the aforesaid benefits of encashment of leave, travelling allowance, etc., even as these benefits were part and parcels of permanency status. 7.1.1 In Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas (supra), the Division Bench confirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge, noted the submissions on behalf of the State authorities thus: “2. Learned AGP reiterated the argument that even as workmen concerned were entitled to, and were in fact granted most of the benefits at par with regular employees of the State, in terms of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, some of the benefits such as encashment of leave, leave travel assistance, travelling allowance, uniform allowance etc. were denied to them on the basis that they were not fullfledged duly recruited government servants. Learned AGP relied upon subsequent government resolution dated 18.7.1994, whereby it was sought to be clarified that the word ‘permanent’ in G.R. dated 17.10.1988 was meant to convey job security but it was not meant to be understood to make daily rated employees regular employees on the set up and establishment of respective departments. Learned AGP relied upon subsequent government resolution dated 18.7.1994, whereby it was sought to be clarified that the word ‘permanent’ in G.R. dated 17.10.1988 was meant to convey job security but it was not meant to be understood to make daily rated employees regular employees on the set up and establishment of respective departments. It was fairly conceded that entitlement of the employees concerned was wholly dependent upon reading and interpretation of G.R. dated 17.10.1988.” 7.1.2 The Division Bench thereafter considered the object, applicability and scope of Government Circular dated 17th October, 1988 and further noted the clauses in the subsequent Resolution dated 18th July, 1994. It was thereafter observed in paragraph 5 to hold as under. “5...........subsequent G.R. dated 18.7.1994 is expressly superseding the instructions contained in government resolution dated 3.11.1990 but does not supersede original G.R. dated 17.10.1988. It is also an admitted position that most of substantive benefits of permanent service are already accorded to the employees concerned in terms of G.R. dated 17.10.1988. Under such circumstances, it was argued that nomenclature for treating the employees concerned as permanent was clarified by the government, and hence, denial of few benefits was justified and in order. However, no ground or rational basis could be made out for grant of most of the benefits to most of the employees in terms of G.R. dated 17.10.1988 and for denial of the remaining few benefits. Once the employees concerned were, in fact, treated for all purposes as permanent employees in terms of G.R. dated 17.10.1988, any discrimination or denial of benefits for a segment of such employees, who were subsequently re-branded as “daily wager” (rojamdar) by G.R. dated 18.7.1994, could not be rationally explained and could not be countenanced in the face of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Nor can the State Government legally take away the rights conferred and benefits, already accorded to the employees concerned by or under a subsequent government resolution, which expressly supersedes earlier instructions and not earlier G.R. dated 17.10.1988 by which the benefits were accorded to the employees. It also sounds absurd and baseless that employee employed on daily wage basis for 15 years would be made permanent under G.R. dated 17.10.1988 but subsequently re-branded and treated as a daily wager. It also sounds absurd and baseless that employee employed on daily wage basis for 15 years would be made permanent under G.R. dated 17.10.1988 but subsequently re-branded and treated as a daily wager. The submission of learned AGP that such employees had to continue as daily wage employee, with limited benefits in terms of subsequent G.R. dated 18.7.1994 and that they were at best “permanent daily wage employees” is contradictory and has no backing of any legal provision or precedent.” 7.2 On behalf of respondent No. 1-State, affidavit-in-reply was filed through the Under Secretary, Narmada Water Resource, Water Supply and Kalpsar Department in which it was accepted that Special Leave Petition Nos. 29108-29114 of 2014 was disposed of by the Apex Court and the question of granting benefits to the daily- wagers of respondent No. 2 Board attained finality and that the entitlement of the petitioners for grant of benefits concerned is within the purview of respondent No. 2-Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board. However, respondent No. 1 expressed objection to the grant of the prayer in respect of extending the benefit of various allowances such as Transport Allowance, Leave Encashment, Leave Travel Concession, etc. by submitting that the issue with regard to grant of these benefits to daily-wagers is pending in Letters Patent Appeal (Stamp) Nos. 1134 of 2017 and 1271 of 2017. Dealing with the said aspect of pendency of said Letters Patent Appeals, no orders are passed in the said Letters Patent Appeals. 7.3 Not only that and in any view, the employees involved in the said Letters Patent Appeals are the employees of the Departments of the Government whereas the present petitioners are the employees of respondent No. 2 - Board. They are identically placed with other similarly situated employees of the same Board who are granted the benefits claimed in the petition. Therefore, since the petitioners belonged to the homogeneous class, they are entitled to the same benefit and same treatment. As far as the entitlement of this class of employees working under the respondent No. 2-Board, the issue can be said to have already been considered and decided. 7.4 There is yet another reason as to why the petitioners herein could not be denied the equal treatment in respect of payment of the allowances of transport allowance, travelling allowance, etc. As far as the entitlement of this class of employees working under the respondent No. 2-Board, the issue can be said to have already been considered and decided. 7.4 There is yet another reason as to why the petitioners herein could not be denied the equal treatment in respect of payment of the allowances of transport allowance, travelling allowance, etc. Subsequent to the orders of the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos.29108-29114 of 2014 mentioned above, similarly placed batch of employees were granted the benefits by the respondent-Board by passing Office Order No. 59 of 2016 dated 02nd September, 2016 in which, along with granting of benefits of 6th Pay Commission, the Board also accorded benefits of the allowances mentioned hereinabove. A reference is made to this office order in paragraph 5.4 in Anand Bhausaheb Pawar (supra). Therefore, as far as the Board's employees are concerned and all those other similarly situated, these benefits to be extended to them as flowing from the status of permanency which they may acquire by getting benefit of Resolution dated 17th October, 1988. 8. The issues in the controversy and claims of and relief prayed for by the petitioners operate interactively. The decision in Atul C. Soni (supra) was also based on the Division Bench decision in Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas (supra). 8.1 It is to be further noticed that the decision in Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas (supra) was challenged before the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.19970-19975 of 2012 which came to be dismissed by order dated 09th November, 2012. Thereafter the review applications came to be filed by the State being Nos.35043-35048 of 2012 and the said review applications were also dismissed on 14th May, 2015. Therefore, the decision in Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas (supra) having attained finality upto the stage of the Apex Court, stands to operate to apply to the present petitioners and all other similarly situated employees for the purpose of their claim to be granted the allowances in question as part of permanency benefits. 9. Therefore, the decision in Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas (supra) having attained finality upto the stage of the Apex Court, stands to operate to apply to the present petitioners and all other similarly situated employees for the purpose of their claim to be granted the allowances in question as part of permanency benefits. 9. In the above view, class of the daily-wagers to which the petitioners herein belonged, have to be held entitled to the relief prayed in paragraph 33(C) and the benefits of (i) Transport Allowance; (ii) Travelling Allowance; (iii) Transfer Travelling Allowance; (iv) Leave Encashment and (v) Leave Travel Concession are required to be extended to them in the same lines as they are extended to the permanent employees since these petitioners are also treated as permanent on the basis of Resolution dated 17th October, 1988. 9.1 The view taken as above stand solidified by subsequent decisions on the aspect. In Vallabhbhai Chhotabhai Chauhan vs. State of Gujarat being Special Civil Application No. 1945 of 2014, the petitioner therein was a retired daily-wager who prayed that he was entitled for encashment of privilege leave. The petitioner was appointed as daily-wager and was granted benefit of permanency under Resolution dated 17th October, 1988. Learned Single Judge relied on Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas (supra) and allowed the petition holding that the petitioner was entitled to the encashment of privilege leave to the extent of 300 days. This decision in Vallabhbhai Chhotabhai Chauhan (supra) was confirmed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1310 of 2015 decided on 30th October, 2015. 9.2 Referring to the decision of Division Bench in State of Gujarat vs. Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas (supra), it was observed in the aforementioned judgment dated 30th October, 2015 as under. “6. When the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, which has been relied upon by the learned Single Judge is not interfered with by the Apex Court in the afore referred proceedings of SLP and the review is also dismissed, in our view, it cannot be said that the learned Single Judge had committed any error in exercise of the power, which may call for interference in the present appeal. Further, when the SLP is also dismissed against the above referred decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat (supra) and the review application is also subsequently dismissed, such would be a further more ground not to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.” 9.3 The same question came to be dealt with by another Division Bench of this Court in Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs. Jorubhai Jijibhai Dabhi being Letters Patent Appeal No. 457 of 2016 wherein also the original petitioner had claimed benefit of leave encashment upon his retirement. Learned Single Judge allowed the petition, against which Letters Patent Appeal No. 457 of 2016 was preferred. The Division Bench relied on Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas (supra) and confirmed the decision of the learned Single Judge by dismissing the appeal. 10. The aforesaid facts and the principles of law highlighted, render the inaction on part of the respondent authorities (a) in not extending the benefits of 6th Pay Commission to the petitioners; (b) in not merging 50% Dearness Allowance in the basic salary with effect from 01st April, 2004 and (c) in not granting the benefits of allowances (i) Transport Allowance; (ii) Travelling Allowance; (iii) Transfer Travelling Allowance; (iv) Leave Encashment and (v) Leave Travel Concession as part of permanency benefits though the benefit of permanency is granted to the petitioners under Resolution dated 17th October, 1988, as violative of petitioners' rights under Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. This discrimination has to be finally smothered by granting the relief.” 35. The other argument of Shri Trivedi placing reliance upon the judgment in the case of Karshanbhai K. Rabari (supra) would also not be available today in view of the subsequent developments that have taken place in between as narrated above in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 36. The other argument of Shri Trivedi regarding difference between permanency and regularization would also not be available insofar as the present appeals are concerned inasmuch as the benefits extended by the learned Single Judge have already been extended by the Sewerage Board and the State of Gujarat for the employees of the Sewerage Board vide subsequent circulars after the judgment in the case of Atul C. Soni (supra) attained finality before the Supreme Court. 37. 37. It would also be worthwhile to mention here that the judgment in the case of Mahendrakumar Bhagwandas (supra) having been upheld upto the Supreme Court and all the issues having been raised and having been discussed and dealt with, it would be unreasonable and unfair to the original petitioners from denying the benefit extended to the other daily wagers covered by the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988.” 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Harinandan Prasad and another (supra) has held as under: “39. On harmonious reading of the two judgments discussed in detail above, we are of the opinion that when there are posts available, in the absence of any unfair labour practice the Labour Court would not give direction for regularization only because a worker has continued as daily wage worker/ad-hoc/temporary worker for number of years. Further, if there are no posts available, such a direction for regularization would be impermissible. In the aforesaid circumstances giving of direction to regularize such a person, only on the basis of number of years put in by such a worker as daily wager etc. may amount to backdoor entry into the service which is an anathema to Art.14 of the Constitution. Further, such a direction would not be given when the concerned worker does not meet the eligibility requirement of the post in question as per the Recruitment Rules. However, wherever it is found that similarly situated workmen are regularized by the employer itself under some scheme or otherwise and the workmen in question who have approached Industrial/Labour Court are at par with them, direction of regularization in such cases may be legally justified, otherwise, non-regularization of the left over workers itself would amount to invidious discrimination qua them in such cases and would be violative of Art.14 of the Constitution. Thus, the Industrial adjudicator would be achieving the equality by upholding Art. 14, rather than violating this constitutional provision.” 13. It is not in dispute that petitioners are continued in work for more than 10 years even after their services were stated to be terminated in the year 2002. It is also relevant that Mahuva Nagarpalika and thereafter State Government has not taken any action to sanction 52 vacancies in the hospital since 2008 which would now have increased manifolds after more than 15 years. 14. It is also relevant that Mahuva Nagarpalika and thereafter State Government has not taken any action to sanction 52 vacancies in the hospital since 2008 which would now have increased manifolds after more than 15 years. 14. In such circumstances, these petitions are disposed of with the following directions: (1) The State Government shall consider the sanctioning of the posts to fill up the vacancies in the General Hospital at Mahuva within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (2) On sanctioning of the regular post, the services of workmen who are employed from 1988 to 1999 and are working since then, shall be regularised on such sanctioned posts as per the order passed by the Industrial Court giving all the benefits. (3) Mahuva Nagarpalika shall bear the burden of arrears to be paid to workmen as per the impugned order upto 30.04.2013 and the State Government shall bear the same from 01.05.2013 as the administration of Mahuva hospital is taken over by the State Government from 01.05.2013. (4) The services of the workmen shall continue till requisite posts are sanctioned by the State Government as directed here in above and shall not be terminated, as per the interim order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 3434/2013. 15. All the petitions are accordingly disposed with the aforesaid directions. Rule is discharged. No order as to cost.