JUDGMENT : (A.S. SUPEHIA, J.) 1. Admit . Mr. P. C. Chaudhari, learned advocate waives service of notice of admission on behalf of the respondents. 2. The matter is taken-up for final disposal today. The present appeal emanates from the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, dated 31 st March 2021 in the captioned writ petition filed by the appellant University challenging the award dated 17 th July 2009 passed by the Labour Court, Dahod in Reference (LCD) (Demand) no.1 of 2008 (Old Reference (LCG) (Demand) no.8 of 1996, whereby the Labour Court has allowed the reference filed by the respondent workmen and directed the appellant University to treat the concerned workman as permanent from the year 1990 and to pay dearness allowance, house rent allowance, medical allowance, benefits of leave encashment etc. and also grant Rs.5,000/- as a cost to each of them. 3. At the outset, Mr. Chauhan, learned advocate appearing for the appellant university has invited our attention to the statement of demand and the terms of reference and has submitted that the entire demand of the respondents workmen and the reference proceedings are premised on the Government Resolution dated 17 th October, 1988 issued by the Road and Building Department of the State Government. It is submitted that the said resolution is not applicable to the appellant University and it has its own scheme. 4. On a specific query raised by us in this regard to Mr. Chaudhari, learned advocate for the respondents, he has fairly submitted that the said resolution dated 17 th October, 1988 issued by the State Government is not applicable to the University. However, it is contended by him that independent of the aforesaid resolution, the Labour Court has directed the appellant university to confer the permanent status to the respondent- employees. 5. Mr. Chauhan, learned advocate has submitted that out of these 15 workmen, who had raised the industrial dispute, 11 of them have already passed away. He has produced the details of such workmen in the additional affidavit dated 8th August 2024. 6. Mr. Chauhan, learned advocate has further submitted that the Labour Court has referred to the pleadings of both the parties with regard to the applicability of the Government Resolution dated 17 th October, 1988. He has produced the details of such workmen in the additional affidavit dated 8th August 2024. 6. Mr. Chauhan, learned advocate has further submitted that the Labour Court has referred to the pleadings of both the parties with regard to the applicability of the Government Resolution dated 17 th October, 1988. He has also submitted that in the written statement filed by the University, a specific contention was raised that this resolution is not applicable to the University. It is submitted that similar contention was raised before the learned Single Judge. However, the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition. Thus, it is urged that the present appeal may be allowed by setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the award dated 31 st March, 2021. 7. Mr. Chaudhari, learned advocate for the respondents at this stage has submitted that liberty may be reserved in favour of the respondent- workmen to claim regular pay scale or status of permanent for filing an appropriate application before the University, since all the workmen have completed more than 25 to 30 years of service. He has also submitted that liberty may be reserved in favour of the respondents workmen or their heirs to claim the benefits of the scheme of the appellant University, which has been considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat Agricultural University Vs. Rathod Labhu Bechar, reported in 2001 (3) SCC 574 . 8. We have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. 9. The genesis of the dispute lies in the demand made by the respondents workmen claiming benefits of regular pay scale of Rs.750/- and other benefits such as Dearness Allowance, Medical allowance, HRA, Leave Travel Allowance, Overtime Allowance, Cycle Allowance etc. The statement of demand dated 15 th February, 2000, categorically refers to the resolution dated 17 th October, 1988 issued by the State Government for its employees of conferring the aforesaid benefits. The entire demand/case of the workmen is premised on the Government Resolution dated 17 th October, 1988. Accordingly, the dispute was referred by the appropriate Government in line of the demand made by the workmen. The Labour Court, accordingly also considered the rival submissions of the respective parties while referring to the Resolution dated 17 th October, 1988. The entire demand/case of the workmen is premised on the Government Resolution dated 17 th October, 1988. Accordingly, the dispute was referred by the appropriate Government in line of the demand made by the workmen. The Labour Court, accordingly also considered the rival submissions of the respective parties while referring to the Resolution dated 17 th October, 1988. The appellant University, in their reply before the Labour Court, had specifically taken a stand that the Government Resolution dated 17 th October, 1988 issued for the daily wagers of various departments conferring the regular pay scale after completion of 5-10-15 years of service is not applicable to the appellant University. Despite the aforesaid position and contention taken by the appellant-University, we find that the Labour Court has not even remotely answered the aforesaid issue and has directed the University to confer the permanent status to the respondents workmen along with all the benefits such as Dearness Allowance, Pay Revision, Medical Allowance etc. There is no finding recorded as to under which provision of law they are entitled to be made permanent. 10. The Labour Court has only referred to the number of years rendered by them ranging from 20 to 30 years of service. It is also not in dispute and an admitted fact by Mr. Chaudhari, learned advocate for the respondents that the University is having its own scheme of regularizing the daily wagers, which has been considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Rathod Labhu Bechar (supra) . We may refer to the observations of the Supreme Court, while examining such scheme, the same is as under :-. “26. In the light of the aforesaid decisions we now proceed to examine the proposed scheme. Under Clause 1 it is proposed that all daily wage workers, whether skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled who have completed 10 years or more of continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar year as on 31 st December, 1999 is to be regularised and be put in the time scale of pay applicable to the corresponding lowest grade in the university. However, the said regularisation is subject to some conditions. Under Clause 1(a) such employee is eligible only if he possess the prescribed qualifications for the post at the time of their appointment. The strong objection has been raised to this eligibility clause. However, the said regularisation is subject to some conditions. Under Clause 1(a) such employee is eligible only if he possess the prescribed qualifications for the post at the time of their appointment. The strong objection has been raised to this eligibility clause. The submission is, those working for a period of 10 or more years without any complaint is by itself a sufficient requisite qualification and any other rider on the facts of this case would prejudice these workers. We find merit in this submission. We have perused the qualifications referred in the aforesaid recruitment rules according to which, qualification for Peon is that he should study upto 8 th Std., for Operator-cum-Mechanic, should have Diploma in Mechanic having sufficient knowledge of vehicle repairing experience in automobiles or tractors Dealers workshop for two years, for Chowkidar, he must be literate and have good physique. Literate is not defined. For Plumber to have LT.I. Certificate. We feel that daily rate workers who have been working on the aforesaid posts for such a long number of years without complaint on these posts is a ground by itself for the relaxation of the aforesaid eligibility condition. It would not be appropriate to disqualify them on this ground for their absorption, hence Clause 1(a), need modification to this effect. 27. In Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation, 1990 (1) SCC 361 : ( AIR 1990 SC 371 : 1990 Lab IC 126), this Court observed (para 6 of AIR and Lab IC): "The main controversy centres round the question whether some petitioners are possessed of the requisite qualifications to hold the posts so as to entitle them to be confirmed in the respective posts held by them. The indisputable facts are that the petitioners were appointed between the period 1983 and 1986 ever since, they have been working and have gained sufficient experience in the actual discharge of duties attached to the posts held by them. Practical experience would always aid the person to effectively discharge the duties and it is sure guide to assess the suitability. The initial minimum educational qualification prescribed for the different posts is undoubtedly a factor to be reckoned with, but it is so at the time of the initial entry into the service. Practical experience would always aid the person to effectively discharge the duties and it is sure guide to assess the suitability. The initial minimum educational qualification prescribed for the different posts is undoubtedly a factor to be reckoned with, but it is so at the time of the initial entry into the service. Once the appointments were made as daily rated workers and they were allowed to work for a considerable length of time, it would be hard and harsh to deny them the confirmation in the respective posts on the ground that they lack the prescribed educational qualifications." 28. Thus in view of their long experience on the fact of this case and for the concerned posts the prescribed qualification, if any, should not come in the way of their regularisation. Clause 1(b) provides for the regularisation of daily wagers in a phased manner to the extent of available sanctioned post. 29. The decision to absorb some of the employees at one point of time or in a phased manner depends on facts and circumstances of each case. Where very large number of workers are required to be absorbed, this Court accepted the formula, in the past to absorb such employees under a Scheme in a phased manner. This is done to work it out within its financial means. Every liberty and entitlement is always subject to such financial limits. But in E considering such absorption, the financial means have to be stretched to the maximum but should not be a defence with motive to disentitle the claim of the workmen. The grant of this phased absorption thus is in itself a mechanism under this principle. But as we have said this mechanism is not a tool to misuse for taking away any legitimate right of any worker. The Court has to be cautious in exercising its discretion. On the one hand it has to keep the interest of the workers alive and on the other' to see that employer does not become spineless for the lack of funds eroding the very workers interest. In the present case admittedly in the first phase in terms of Clause 1, one block of daily wage worker is to be regularised for which the posts are being created. In the present case admittedly in the first phase in terms of Clause 1, one block of daily wage worker is to be regularised for which the posts are being created. We want to make it clear, in creating posts Government shall see maximum posts are created to absorb maximum such workers who have completed ten years as on 31st December, 2000, as these workers have more than eligible claim. Thereafter, even reassessment for additional posts, about which we are referring should be done in the same perspective. In other words there may still be number of workers who may still not be covered for absorption under the first phase of Clause 1 due to initial non-availability of posts though working for a long number of years. We are saying so because Clause 1(d) is silent, what number of posts Government is being created initially for the first phase of absorption.” 11. Thus, since the resolution dated 17 th October, 1988 is not applicable and is not adopted by the appellant-University and the University has its own scheme as mentioned above, it will be open for the respondents, which include the legal heirs of the original workmen who were parties to the original proceedings before the Labour Court, to approach the appellant-University claiming the benefits under the scheme promulgated by it. In case, such application(s) is made, the University shall decide the claim in accordance with their Scheme within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of such application(s). The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 31 st March, 2021 confirming the award dated 17th July, 2009 are hereby quashed and set aside. Present Letters Patent Appeal stands allowed and is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 12. In case the appellant University passes any adverse order against the respondents, it will be open for them to assail the same by filing an appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum. 13. In view of the disposal of the Letters Patent Appeal, the connected Civil Application also stands disposed of.