JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Mr.Jeet Rajyaguru, learned advocate waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent-workman. 2. The petitioner-municipality has filed this petition challenging an award dated 05.10.2021 of Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) No.77 of 2012 wherein, the petitioner was directed to regularise the service of respondent-workman from 01.11.2010. Benefits of seniority, such as salary grade and other benefits of seniority, promotion, gratuity and other retirement benefits shall be awarded from 01.11.2010. Labour Court directed that the service of respondent-workman from 01.11.2010 (date of joining) to 05.10.2021 (date of award) is to be considered as Notional and no arrears shall be paid for this period. 3. Heard Mr.Vivek Bhamare, learned advocate for the petitioner and learned advocate for the respondent- workman. 4. Mr.Vivek Bhamare, learned advocate for the petitioner- municipality submitted that award of the Industrial Tribunal is erroneous because the award amounts to creation of post of Pumpman/Valveman and thereafter to regularise his service by making necessary representation/requisition before the appropriate authority. Creation of post is not permissible under the law. Further, there is no sanctioned post available for the post of Pumpman/Valveman and therefore, the award of the Industrial Tribunal is erroneous. He also highlighted the financial difficulties faced by the petitioner-municipality and thus, requested to quash and set aside the award. 4.1. Learned advocate for the petitioner tendered a compilation of decisions to submit that when sanctioned posts are not available, Industrial Tribunal ought not to have directed the petitioner to make requisition to the State Authority for sanctioning of the posts and to grant regularisation. Referring to the set-up of Petitioner-Municipality, learned advocate submitted that there is no sanctioned post of Pumpman/Valveman and therefore, the award is erroneous. 5. On the other hand, learned advocate for respondent- employee submitted that the issue under consideration is no more res-integra in view of decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No.13183 of 2016 and allied matters. Special Civil Application No.13183 of 2016 and allied matters were subject matter of appeal in Letters Patent Appeal No.973 of 2023 and other connected matters, wherein the appeals filed by the petitioner- Municipality were rejected. 6. Considered the submissions and decisions relied upon. Submission of learned advocate for the respondent-workman that the issue involved in this petition was subject matter of proceedings before this Court and the same could not be disputed by learned advocate for the petitioner Mr.Bhamare. 7. 6. Considered the submissions and decisions relied upon. Submission of learned advocate for the respondent-workman that the issue involved in this petition was subject matter of proceedings before this Court and the same could not be disputed by learned advocate for the petitioner Mr.Bhamare. 7. Further, it is noticed that in similar facts situation, co-ordinate bench of this Court in the order dated 05.08.2022, in Special Civil Application No.13183 of 2016, has held as under: “6. The petitioner-Municipality has placed on record information regarding sanctioned set up in the petitioner-municipality in a tabular form, wherein under various departments, 84 posts are reported to be vacant. Therefore, it is evident from the record of the Municipality itself that there are sanctioned vacant posts even within the establishment in various departments. A cursory reference to such tabular information would indicate that majority of such vacant posts are still vacant which are in Class-IV. In the opinion of the Court, regardless of the posts on which the respondent may be engaged with the petitioner-Municipality, the same being Class-IV post, there should not be any hesitation in accommodating such respondent- workman on any Class-IV post which has fallen vacant and in fact, the respondent-workmen who have litigated for such long years, would also be interested in the employment of the Municipality as Class-IV employees. Therefore, in the opinion of the Court, directions issued by the Industrial Tribunal are as per the requirements of the Municipality. 7. The only issue which requires to be considered is for leaving open to the petitioner-Municipality in accommodating the respondents-workmen within the establishment on any post of Class-IV employee. The petitioner-Municipality being employer has best resources to accommodate and adjust its employees and therefore, direction of the Industrial Tribunal be construed that the respondent-workman, regardless of the post on which he was working, had to be absorbed by the Municipality in Class-IV post which is vacant, that too as directed by the Industrial Tribunal after following strict seniority. Such an exercise at the hands of the Municipality may not be difficult exercise, but would resolve the issue both for the respondent-workman as well as the petitioner Municipality looking to the sizable 84 vacant posts available within the Municipality set up, out of which majority being Class-IV posts. Such an exercise at the hands of the Municipality may not be difficult exercise, but would resolve the issue both for the respondent-workman as well as the petitioner Municipality looking to the sizable 84 vacant posts available within the Municipality set up, out of which majority being Class-IV posts. Even after placing of the information before this Court, there would be substantial changes which also the Municipality would be entitled to take into consideration while implementing award of the Industrial Tribunal. 8. Before the Industrial Tribunal, evidence placed on record on behalf of the petitioner-Municipality is communication dated 27.01.2010 addressed by the Chief Officer to Internal Auditor regarding cancellation of pay commission application which was given under the award of the Industrial tribunal, which according to this Court, has no relevance to the facts of this case. The other document being certificate issued by the Chief Officer to show debt of the Municipality and lastly, table showing total posts which are filled up within the set up, which indicates 231 employed under the sanctioned set up. xxx xxx xxx 11. In case of Syed Yakoob (supra), in para-7, the Apex Court has held as under :- “7. The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Art. 226 has been frequently considered by this Court and the true legal position in that behalf is no longer in doubt. A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals; these are cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdictions. A writ can similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal acts illegally or improperly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice. There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as a result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of tact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the. Tribunal had. erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was' insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Art. 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised (vide Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmed Ishaque, Nagendra Nath Bora v. The Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam, and Kaushalya Devi v. Bachittar Singh A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 1168.” 12. This Court in case of the very Municipality in order dated 25.03.2022 in Special Civil Application No.19334 of 2017 and allied matters, in paras-14 and 15 has observed as under:- “14. This Court in case of the very Municipality in order dated 25.03.2022 in Special Civil Application No.19334 of 2017 and allied matters, in paras-14 and 15 has observed as under:- “14. Considering that only argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner municipality that there is no sanctioned post and that the expenditure exceeds Rs.45,010/-, this Court is of the view that these aspects have not been proved by the petitioner municipality before the Labour Court by placing sufficient evidence. What is placed on record is a Government Resolution dated 01.06.2010 for minimum establishment and minimum parameters of the Nagarpalika Establishment in Gujarat where, in Clause-8, Pumpman post is abolished for one pump 1 post and to engage employee by fixed pay/minimum wages/outsourcing. 15. However, present day establishment of petitioner municipality which is made available for Court’s perusal indicates 84 vacancies on various clear 4 posts. The sanctioned strength is 243 and after reduction of 20%, strength comes to 194 of where 55 vacancies are filled in the set up and 91 vacancies were filled by awards and at present 84 clear vacancies are there in the entire set up which includes vacancies in Sanitation, Water Works etc. departments.” 13. The Court has also perused the award of the Industrial Tribunal and there does not appear to be any error, much less jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference of this Court. The award is also substantiated and a well reasoned.” 8. The order dated 05.08.2022, in Special Civil Application No.13183 of 2016 and allied matters, was subject matter of Letters Patent Appeal No.973 of 2023, wherein this Court vide order dated 23.01.2024, after taking into consideration various decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, has held as under: “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 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). 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. xxx xxx xxx 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. 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. 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). 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 left-over 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 elaborately 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.” 9. In view of above, it is not in dispute that the relief prayed for in the present petition has been considered by this Court in Special Civil Application No.13183 of 2016, confirmed in Letters Patent Appeal No.973 of 2023. Therefore, the contentions of learned advocate for the petitioner does not merit acceptance. 10. In view of the above, in the opinion of this Court the issue referred in this petition is no more res-integra in view of decision of this Court dated 05.08.2022, in Special Civil Application No.13183 of 2016 and decision dated 23.01.2024, in Letters Patent Appeal No.973 of 2023. Therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. The award of the Labour Court is hereby confirmed. Rule is discharged. 11. Keeping in mind the fact that respondent - workman has been working for a long time, the directions issued by the Tribunal in the final paragraph shall be carried out at the earliest.