JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Mr.Jeet Rajyaguru, learned advocate waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent – workman and Mr.Mayank Chavda, learned AGP waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No.3. 2. Municipality as petitioner has filed this petition challenging an award of Industrial Tribunal dated 29.11.2021, in Reference (IT) No.21 of 2009 wherein, the petitioner was directed to grant benefit of regularisation to the respondent- workman from 01.03.1999 (date of joining). Benefits such as salary grade and other benefits of seniority, promotion, gratuity and other retirement benefits shall be awarded from the date of joining. The period, from the date of joining till the date of award, is to be considered as notional. 3. Facts, in brief, as referred in the petition, are as under: The respondent-workman was working as Driver with Municipality from 01.03.1999 as Daily wager. For his regularisation, he raised dispute before Industrial Tribunal registered as Reference (IT) No.21 of 2009. Upon adjudication, Reference came to be allowed in favour of the respondent- workman and the petitioner was directed to grant benefit of regularisation to the respondent-workman from 01.03.1999 (date of joining). Benefits such as salary grade and other benefits of seniority, promotion, gratuity and other retirement benefits shall be awarded from the date of joining. The period, from the date of joining till the date of award, is to be considered as notional. Aggrieved by the directions, the present petition is filed. 4. Heard Mr.Vivek Bhamare, learned advocate for the petitioner and learned advocate for the respondent- workman. 5. Mr.Vivek Bhamare, learned advocate for the petitioner- municipality has submitted that award of the Industrial Tribunal is erroneous because it has ignored the provisions of Gujarat Municipalities Act. There is no work available with the Municipality and therefore, question of regularisation would not arise. Most importantly, there are no sanctioned post available on which, the respondent can be regularised and regularisation of the workman would amount to creation of post, which is not permissible under law. Further, initial appointment of respondent- workman was backdoor entry and Municipality is to recruit their employees after following recruitment process, which was not done in the present case and therefore, they are not entitled for regularisation. 6. Further, initial appointment of respondent- workman was backdoor entry and Municipality is to recruit their employees after following recruitment process, which was not done in the present case and therefore, they are not entitled for regularisation. 6. On the other hand, learned advocate for respondent- workman submitted that the issue under consideration is no more res-integra in view of decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No.19334 of 2017 and allied matters. Special Civil Application No.19334 of 2017 and allied matters was subject matter of appeal in Letters Patent Appeal No.1398 of 2022 and other connected matters, wherein the appeals filed by the petitioner- Municipality were rejected. Even Special Leave to Appeal (civil) No. 1606 of 2024 by the petitioner- Municipality was dismissed vide order dated 23.01.2024. 6.1 Learned Advocate submitted that against the common order dated 25.03.2022, in Special Civil Application 19336 of 2017, one more Letters Patent Appeal No.1438 of 2022 was preferred and the same was dismissed confirming the order dated 25.03.2022. Thus, the order dated was confirmed in both the Letters Patent Appeal No. 1398 of 2022 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 1438 of 2022. In one another order in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No 1261 of 2024, the Hon’ble Apex Court, permitted to prefer review before this Court. The Misc. Civil Application (for review) No.757 of 2024 was filed and was also dismissed. Thus, since the order in Special Civil Application No.19334 of 2017 and allied matters, is confirmed till Hon’ble Supreme Court, the award of the Labour Court deserves no interference and the petition may be rejected. 7. 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 Hon’ble Supreme could not be disputed by Learned Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Bhamere. 7.1 Further, it is noticed that in similar facts situation, co-ordinate bench of this Court in the order dated 25.03.2022, in Special Civil Application No.19334 of 2017 and allied matters, has held as under: “13. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to a decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of Amreli Nagarpalika (Supra), where the Division Bench had to deal with similar contention raised herein. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to a decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of Amreli Nagarpalika (Supra), where the Division Bench had to deal with similar contention raised herein. Paragraph Nos.2.1, 11, 17 and 21 of the said decision read as under:- “2.1 The appellants herein are the Union and the original claimants. The claimant herein was appointed on the post of peon by the respondent No.1 Amreli Nagarpalika vide order dated 21.12.1983. As on date also, the claimant is in service, but as a daily wager drawing daily wages in accordance with the Minimum Wages Act. It appears that the claimant herein went before the Tribunal and prayed for regularization of his service. The claimant prayed before the Tribunal that he should be conferred the status of being a permanent workman and should be paid salary and other perquisites at par with the regular and permanent workmen. The Tribunal rejected the claim. 11. Thus, the ratio discernible from the above referred observations is that the Labour Court should not issue any direction of regularization. However, the Labour Court/Industrial Court may exercise its powers for giving the status of permanency to the contract employees if the employer is found to have indulged in unfair labour practice by not filling up the permanent post even when available and continuing to employee workers on temporary/daily wage basis. In Para-39, the Supreme Court laid down that even if it is found that similarly situated workmen have been regularized by the employer itself under some scheme or otherwise and the workmen in question who had approached the Industrial/Labour Court is at par with them, then the direction of regularization in such cases may be legally justified. 17. Having regard to the aforesaid, we are of the view that the decision of the Supreme Court in Hari Nandan Prasad (supra) helps the appellant in seeking the reliefs he is praying for after putting in more than 40 years of service with the Nagarpalika. We are convinced having regard to the facts of the case that the Nagarpalika could definitely be said to have indulged in unfair labour practice. The Nagarpalika has no reply to the observations made by the Supreme Court as contained in Para-39 of Hari Nandan Prasad (supra). 21. The next question that comes to our mind is what relief should be granted to the appellant. The Nagarpalika has no reply to the observations made by the Supreme Court as contained in Para-39 of Hari Nandan Prasad (supra). 21. The next question that comes to our mind is what relief should be granted to the appellant. We are of the view that the appellant should be granted notional benefits (all benefits which the appellant would have received as a regular employee) upto the date of the filing of the present appeal. The Amreli Nagarpalika shall absorb the appellant on permanent basis and shall start paying regular salary attached to the post. The arrears towards the difference of regular pay scale from the date of filing of the appeal shall also be paid within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of the writ of this order.” 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. 16. The Court has examined the impugned award of the Labour Court. The award is based on settled principles of law and is a well reasoned order by referring to evidence on record. No error much less jurisdictional error is pointed out against the judgment and award. 17. departments. 16. The Court has examined the impugned award of the Labour Court. The award is based on settled principles of law and is a well reasoned order by referring to evidence on record. No error much less jurisdictional error is pointed out against the judgment and award. 17. In view of the aforesaid direction, no case is made out by the petitioner to interfere with the judgment and award of Labour Court, more particularly where the petitioners have failed to point out any error apparent or error in exercise of jurisdiction so as to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The petitions therefore stand dismissed. Notice is discharged. No order as to costs.” 8. The order dated 25.03.2022, in Special Civil Application No.19334 of 2017 and allied matters, was subject matter of Letters Patent Appeal No.1398 of 2022, wherein this Court after taking into consideration various decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, has held as under: “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. XXXXXXXX 5.8 The evidence regarding the set up at Exh.22 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. 6. 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. 6. For all the aforesaid reasons and discussion, no ground is made out to interfere with the judgment and order of learned Single Judge in each of the Letters Patent Appeals. 7. The Letters Patent Appeals stand meritless and are hereby dismissed. The Civil Applications also stand disposed of in view of dismissal of the main Appeal.” 9. Moreover, Misc. Civil Application No.757 of 2024 seeking review was also dismissed by holding as under: “9. This is not a case where we can hold that there was a mistake or error apparent on face of the record. Nor it is an error justifying an exercise of power of review. The applicants under the guise of review have sought to re-agitate and re-argue the questions which have already been addressed and decided.” 9.1 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.19334 of 2017, confirmed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1398 of 2022 and allied matters. The SLP filed against the decision in LPA No.1399 of 2022 and LPA No.1438 of 2022, were dismissed. Misc. Civil Application No.757 of 2024 filed seeking review, was also rejected. Therefore, the contentions of learned advocate for the petitioner does not merit acceptance. 9.2 Repetitive submission made on behalf of the petitioner that sanctioned posts of valveman are not available, this court has considered the issue in great detail in paras 3.2 to 4.4 of the decision in Letters Patent Appeal No.1398 of 2022. At this stage considering the reiteration of submission in relation to not having sanctioned post of Valveman, it would be profitable to refer to para 4.4 of the said decision: “4.4 It was attempted in vain by learned advocate for the Municipality that the Municipality did not have the posts of Valveman in the set-up. This court sitting in the Letters Patent Appeal would not like to deviate from the finding of facts on that score recorded by the Industrial Tribunal and confirmed by learned single Judge. The details of the set-up was before the Industrial Tribunal. This court sitting in the Letters Patent Appeal would not like to deviate from the finding of facts on that score recorded by the Industrial Tribunal and confirmed by learned single Judge. The details of the set-up was before the Industrial Tribunal. Even otherwise, it is to be observed that keeping the workman in service giving them meager wages on daily rate basis had indeed no sanctity in law. It was the duty and obligation on the part of the Municipality to seek sanctioned set-up from the competent higher authority to have the posts of Valveman to accommodate the workman concerned to grant them the permanency benefits, when work performed by them was of perennial nature.” 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 25.03.2022, in Special Civil Application No.19334 of 2017 and decision dated 08.11.2023, in Letters Patent Appeal No.1398 of 2022. 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.