ORDER M.K. THAKKER, J. IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.268 OF 2020 1. The present petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamnagar in Reference (I.T.) No.29 of 2016 dated 06.05.2019 whereby, the learned labour court has granted benefit of regularization to the respondent workman. 2. Brief facts arising from the present petition is as under: 2.1. The respondent workman has filed the statement of claim before the learned labour court alleging that he was appointed on 15.12.1996 on the post of Peon and his services were terminated without following procedure under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the “I.D.Act”) on 31.01.1998. Challenging the order of termination, dispute was raised before the learned labour court which culminated into reference being Reference (LCJ) No.244 of 1998 and the learned reference court, after considering the evidence placed on record has awarded the reference in favour of the respondent by granting the relief of reinstatement with 20% back wages. The above award was challenged before this Court by filing a Writ Petition being Special Civil Application No.11288 of 2018 which came to be dismissed and was challenged before the Apex Court by filing the Special Leave Petition No.33224 of 2014 which was also dismissed vide order dated 08.12.2014. Thereafter, second reference was filed being Reference (I.T.) No.29 of 2016 praying for regularization as a Class- IV employee and for the payment of all monetary benefits of salary as well as arrears. Learned Presiding Officer, after considering the evidence and submissions made by both the parties has awarded the reference in favour of the respondent which is subject matter of challenge before this Court. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Premal Joshi for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.T.R.Mishra for the respondent employee. 4. Learned advocate Mr.Joshi submits that the petitioner was never appointed in the establishment of Gujarat Ayurved University as he was appointed in one project of University called Swasthavrut Yog Nisargopchar Vibhag at Prakrutik Upchar Sanstha as purely on honorary basis for the purpose of doing miscellaneous work which is required for the said project. It is contended that the appointment order which was issued and part of the record does not suggest the regular appointment and the appointment was made for the specific department which is self financed and bearing own cost. It is contended that the appointment order which was issued and part of the record does not suggest the regular appointment and the appointment was made for the specific department which is self financed and bearing own cost. Learned advocate Mr.Joshi submits that there was irregularity reported by the Higher Officers and therefore, it became difficult for the petitioner to continue the service of the workman. Learned advocate Mr.Joshi submits that apart from the above aspects, the petitioner merged with the newly established institute namely Institute of Teaching and Research in Ayurveda and as per the condition of the notification which is issued on 22.09.2020, the Gujarat Ayurved University would not be liable for the pay and other financial responsibility to the employees of Institute of Teaching and Research in Ayurveda. Learned advocate Mr.Joshi submits that therefore, amendment was carried out and in place of Gujarat Ayurved University, the Institute of Teaching and Research in Ayurveda was impleaded as a party. Learned advocate Mr.Joshi submits that in absence of any vacant post in the said Institute it is difficult to accommodate the present respondent by giving benefit of regularization. Learned advocate Mr.Joshi submits that in view of above, the petition deserves to be allowed and impugned award deserves to be set aside. 5. As against the same learned advocate Mr.Mishra submits that respondent in serving since 1996 and for that, an appointment order was also issued by Kul Sachiv of Gujarat Ayurved University. Learned advocate Mr.Mishra has also relied on the certificate issued by the Principal Gulab Kuverba Ayurved Mahavidhyalay Jamnagar dated 10.11.1997 showing that the petitioner had worked sincerely since 1996. Similar was the certificate issued by the Principal, Gujarat Ayurved University dated 31.01.1998 as well as the certificate dated 11.05.1998. It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr.Mishra that respondent was not appointed for any project but it was a direct appointment given by the Gujarat Ayurved University, Jamnagar. Learned advocate Mr.Mishra submits that with regard to the honorary appointment and paying honorarium, it was adjudicated in the earlier litigation which was confirmed up to Apex Court. Learned advocate Mr.Mishra submits that in view of the decision of the Apex Court now it is not open for the respondent to raise same contention and denied the benefit of regularization. Learned advocate Mr.Mishra submits that with regard to the honorary appointment and paying honorarium, it was adjudicated in the earlier litigation which was confirmed up to Apex Court. Learned advocate Mr.Mishra submits that in view of the decision of the Apex Court now it is not open for the respondent to raise same contention and denied the benefit of regularization. Learned advocate Mr.Mishra submits that during the cross- examination of the witness of the petitioner, it is admitted by the witness that the respondent is having the educational qualification which is required for Class-IV employee and there are vacant post available with the University which are not filled up through recruitment process. Learned advocate Mr.Mishra submits that though respondent is working since 1996, but has initially been paid wages of Rs.1000/- and after intervention of this Court, has been paid minimum wages and despite the work which is of perineal in nature was carried out by the respondent, by paying meager amount the petitioner has adopted unfair labour practice which is prohibited under the ID Act. 5.1. Learned advocate Mr.Mishra has relied on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Jaggo Versus Union Of India & Ors. reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 and submitted that till date there was no complaint with regard to the irregularities in the work made by the present petitioner, however, when demand of regularization was raised, as an after thought the contention was raised with regard to the complaints. Learned advocate Mr.Mishra submits that in view of the continuous work done by the present respondent, learned reference court has rightly granted the benefit of regularization, and therefore, no interference is required and petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the records of the case, it is undisputed fact that the respondent was appointed on 15.012.1996 by the Kul Sachiv of Gujarat Ayurved University, Jamnagar. It emerges that though the respondent was serving since 1996, the appointment order was given for the subsequent date i.e. of 07.05.1997 which is supported by the certificate issued by Principal Gulab Kuverba Ayurvedic Mahavidhyalay dated 10.11.1997, certifying that the respondent is serving since December, 1996 on adhoc basis and the said certificate is produced below mark 37 before the learned reference court. The order below Exh.38 was passed by the Principal Shri Gulab Kuverba Ayurvedic Mahavidhyalay terminating the service of the respondent from 31.01.1998 which was subject matter of challenge before the learned labour court in the reference being Reference (LCJ) No.244 of 1998 which was awarded in favour of the respondent by granting relief of reinstatement with 20% back wages. The said award was challenged before this Court in Writ petition being Special Civil Application No.11288 of 2008 by contending that the petitioner was appointed on honorary basis and he was paid honorarium which was dealt with by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and answered in negative form. The writ petition came to be dismissed which was subject matter of challenge before the Apex Court in the Special Leave Petition No.33224 of 2014 which was also dismissed vide order dated 08.12.2014. As the observation made by this Court, dealing with the contention of honorarium as well as rendering the service as honorary has been confirmed up to the Apex Court, this Court did not deem it fit to decide the same by giving the detailed reasons and this Court is of the view that once the adjudication has already been done by this Court it is not open for the respondent to raise same contention again and again before this Court. The prime contention which was raised with regard to the merging of the Gujarat Ayurved University Institute with Teaching and Research in Ayurveda is concerned, the notification which is part of the petition being Special Civil Application No.3174 of 2021 is required to be referred and the relevant part is reproduced herein below:- “(2) The Institute shall have perpetual succession and a common seal, with power to acquire, hold and dispose of property, both movable and immovable, and to contract, and may by that name sue or be sued. 5. 5. On and from the commencement of this Act,— (a) any reference in any law, other than this Act, or in any contract or other instrument to Anteceding Institutions shall be deemed as a reference to the Institute; (b) all property, movable and immovable, of or belonging to Anteceding Institutions shall vest in the Institute;] (c) all the rights and liabilities of Anteceding Institutions shall be transferred to, and be the rights and liabilities of, the Institute; (d) every person who is employed in the Anteceding Institutions immediately before such commencement shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, become the employee of the Institute and hold his office or service therein by the same tenure, at the same remuneration and upon the same terms and conditions and with the same rights and privileges as to pension, leave, gratuity, provident fund, and other matters as he would have held the same if this Act had not been passed, and shall continue to do so unless and until his employment is terminated or until such tenure, remuneration and terms and conditions are duly altered by regulations: Provided that if the alteration so made is not acceptable to such employee, his employment may be terminated by the Institute in accordance with the terms of the contract with the employee or, if no provision is made therein in this behalf, on payment to him by the Institute of compensation equivalent to not less than three months' remuneration in the case of permanent employees and not less than one month's remuneration in the case of other employees; (e) the Director of the Institute of Post Graduate Teaching and Research in Ayurveda, Jamnagar shall be deemed to have been appointed as the Director of the Institute under this Act and shall hold office for a period of five years with effect from such commencement or until he attains the age of sixty-five years, whichever is earlier; (f) the Directors of Shree Gulabkunverba Ayurved Mahavidyalaya, Jamnagar and the Indian Institute of Ayurvedic Pharmaceutical Sciences, Jamnagar shall be deemed to have been appointed as Deputy Director (Undergraduate) and Deputy Director (Pharmacy), respectively, under this Act and shall hold office for a period of five years with effect from such commencement or until they attain the age of sixty-five years, whichever is earlier; (g) every person pursuing any academic or research course in Anteceding Institutions before such commencement, shall be deemed to have migrated and registered with the Institute at the same level of course in the Institute; (h) all suits and other legal proceedings instituted or which could have been instituted by or against Anteceding Institutions, immediately before such commencement, shall be continued or instituted by or against the Institute. 6. (1) The Institute shall consist of the following members, namely:— (a) the Minister in charge of the Ministry of AYUSH, ex officio; (b) the Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of AYUSH, ex officio; (c) the Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Gujarat, ex officio; (d) the Director of the Institute, ex officio; (e) the technical head of Ayurveda, not below the level of Advisor (Ayurveda), Ministry of AYUSH, ex officio;” 6.1. Considering the above notification, the only change which is made is that all the employees of the University would be considered as the employees of the Institute and the service condition would remain the same including the leave, gratuity, provident fund as well as other benefits. The clause F suggests that Directors of Shri Gulab Kuverba Ayurvedic Mahavidhyalay and Deputy Director under graduate and Deputy Director Pharmacy respectively which suggests that except nomenclature, no other changes were made by the notification dated 22.09.2020. In the opinion of this Court merely the change of nomenclature would not absolve to the present petitioner by giving the benefit of regularization which was awarded by the learned reference court. In addition to that, it emerges from the record that through the cross-examination of the witness of the petitioner, it comes on the record that there are vacant posts available which has been tried to be filled up through outsourcing agency. 7. At this stage the reference of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Jaggo Versus Union Of India & Ors. (supra) in required to be made. The relevant part is reproduced herein below:- “13. The claim by the respondents that these were not regular posts lacks merit, as the nature of the work performed by the appellants was perennial and fundamental to the functioning of the offices. The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants’ termination demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with another, further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasional. 15. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants’ termination demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with another, further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasional. 15. Furthermore, the respondents’ conduct in issuing tenders for outsourcing the same tasks during the pendency of judicial proceedings, despite a stay order from the Tribunal directing maintenance of status quo, reveals lack of bona fide intentions. Such actions not only contravened judicial directives but also underscored the respondents’ unwillingness to acknowledge the appellants’ rightful claims to regularization. 16. The appellants’ consistent performance over their long tenures further solidifies their claim for regularization. At no point during their engagement did the respondents raise any issues regarding their competence or performance. On the contrary, their services were extended repeatedly over the years, and their remuneration, though minimal, was incrementally increased which was an implicit acknowledgment of their satisfactory performance. The respondents’ belated plea of alleged unsatisfactory service appears to be an afterthought and lacks credibility. 17. As for the argument relating to educational qualifications, we find it untenable in the present context. The nature of duties the appellants performed—cleaning, sweeping, dusting, and gardening —does not inherently mandate formal educational prerequisites. It would be unjust to rely on educational criteria that were never central to their engagement or the performance of their duties for decades. Moreover, the respondents themselves have, by their conduct, shown that such criteria were not strictly enforced in other cases of regularization. The appellants’ long-standing satisfactory performance itself attests to their capability to discharge these functions, making rigid insistence on formal educational requirements an unreasonable hurdle.” 8. As from the appointment order it does not transpire for specific project and in view of the continuity of service since 1996 which was granted through the earlier award, this Court did not find any substance in the submissions made by the learned advocate for the petitioner, neither find any infirmity in the impugned award. 9. Resultantly this petition is dismissed and the impugned award passed by the learned reference court is upheld. 9. Resultantly this petition is dismissed and the impugned award passed by the learned reference court is upheld. ORDER IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3174 OF 2021 As it transpired from the record that the respondent herein cannot charge the commercial rate for using the quarters from the present petitioner under the guise that the quarters are in dilated condition, the petition is hereby allowed on a condition that if any renovation is required, then the petitioner would switch to other premise which may be offered by the respondent by paying the same rate which was paid by the present petitioner.