JUDGMENT : M. K. THAKKER, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP Mr. Davda waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents. 2. The present petition is filed by the present petitioner- workman challenging the order passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Nadiad, in Reference (IT) No.08 of 2019 dated 04.02.2022, whereby the learned Tribunal has rejected the claim of the present petitioner with regard to regularization. 3. Gist of the case is that the respondent had invited applications from the Employment Exchange for the recruitment of Watchmen in the Class-IV category and after following due procedure, the petitioner was offered the employment as a Watchman vide order dated 08.09.2003. His monthly salary was of Rs.1,500/- and he was given the appointment on a contract basis, which was started from 09.09.2003 to 08.09.2004. Undisputedly, for a period of nine years, despite non-execution of the contract, he served with the respondent-employer and thereafter his service was terminated vide communication dated 23.03.2012. Challenging the order of termination, the reference came to be filed, being Reference (LCA) No. 70 of 2012, which was awarded in favour of the present petitioner, granting the relief of reinstatement with 10% back wages. The respondent- employer has filed a petition before this Court challenging the award of reinstatement with back wages and this Court has dismissed the petition, which was confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Special Leave Petition. The respondent has reinstated the service of the present petitioner on 05.02.2016, again on a contract basis and on the same pay scale. Therefore, again the petitioner has approached to this Court by way of filing the writ petition, being Special Civil Application No.7402 of 2016, seeking the minimum pay scale along with the prayer of regularization. This Court, vide order dated 04.05.2016, has disposed of the petition with directions upon the present respondent to pay the minimum wages to the present petitioner, however, nothing was observed with regard to the prayer of regularization. The respondent thereafter had paid the minimum wages in order to comply with the directions issued by this Court. Thereafter, the petitioner has again approached to the learned Tribunal in the month of 2019 with a prayer to regularize his service, which came to be rejected by the learned Tribunal vide its award dated 04.02.2022, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court. 4. Heard the learned advocate Mr. Thereafter, the petitioner has again approached to the learned Tribunal in the month of 2019 with a prayer to regularize his service, which came to be rejected by the learned Tribunal vide its award dated 04.02.2022, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court. 4. Heard the learned advocate Mr. Robin Prasad with learned advocate Mr. Subramaniam Iyer for the petitioner and the learned AGP Mr. Aditya Davda for the respondents. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Iyer submits that the reference came to be terminated merely on the ground that the service of the present petitioner was on a contract basis and therefore, it was held by the learned Reference Court that no benefit of regularization can be granted to the contractual employees. The learned advocate Mr. Iyer further submits that the second ground for rejection of the reference is that though the prayer of regularization was made before this Court in Writ Petition No.7402 of 2016, however, while not entertaining the said prayer, only the directions were issued by the Court in Special Civil Application No.7420 of 2016 with regard to the payment of minimum wages. The learned advocate Mr. Iyer submits that despite the petitioner has served with the respondent-employer from 2003 onwards continuously, the learned Reference Court has committed an error in observing that in absence of continuous service of 10 years, the benefit of regularization cannot be granted to the contractual employees. The learned advocate Mr. Iyer submits that though the contract was for a period of 11 months, but the petitioner has served continuously till date, which suggests that the contract is nothing but for the exploitation of the petitioner by paying meager amount. The learned advocate Mr. Iyer submits that in the absence of any cogent reasons, the learned Reference Court has committed an error in disallowing the prayer of regularization and therefore, the present petition deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned award. 6. On the other hand, the learned AGP Mr. Davda submits that the petition itself is required to be dismissed on the principle of res judicata, as once the prayer, which was made by the present petitioner before this Court in Special Civil Application No.7402 of 2016 was not entertained, it is not open for the petitioner to claim the same prayer before the learned Reference Court. The learned AGP Mr. The learned AGP Mr. Davda submits that in absence of any regular appointment, the contractual employees cannot be granted the benefit of regularization dehors the public policy. The learned AGP Mr. Davda submits that after assigning detailed reasons, the learned Reference Court has rejected the reference, therefore, no interference is required. 7. Having considered the arguments made by the learned advocates for the respective parties and on referring to the reasons assigned by the learned Reference Court, it emerges that the petitioner was appointed by the respondent after calling the names from the Employment Exchange as well as after taking the interview and following the due procedure of law. In that background, one cannot be said that it was a back-door entry and therefore, the petitioner would not be entitled for the benefit of regularization. On referring the reasons, it emerges that on 09.09.2003, the appointment on the post of Chowkidar was made of the present petitioner for a period of 11 months, which was completed on 08.09.2004. However, for a period of nine years, he was continued without any extension of contract and on 23.03.2012, his services were put to an end. Challenging the termination order, the reference was filed, being Reference (LCA) No. 70 of 2012, which was allowed in favour of the present petitioner and the relief of reinstatement was granted with 10% back wages. The respondent-employer has challenged the award passed by the learned Court by filing the writ petition, being Special Civil Application No.18580 of 2014 before this Court, which came to be dismissed, against which the respondent had taken the matter up to the Hon’ble Apex Court, which has also dismissed the SLP filed by the respondent. As the benefit of continuity of service as well as reinstatement was awarded with 10% back wages, the respondent has reinstated the petitioner on 05.02.2016, again for a period of 11 months, by paying the wages of Rs.1,500/-, which he was getting at the time of termination. Challenging the action of paying the wages less than the minimum wages, the writ petition came to be filed before this Court, being Special Civil Application No.7402 of 2016 along with the prayer of regularization. However, this Court, while passing the order on 04.05.2016, neither declined the relief of regularization nor allowed the relief and the directions were issued only to pay the minimum wages. However, this Court, while passing the order on 04.05.2016, neither declined the relief of regularization nor allowed the relief and the directions were issued only to pay the minimum wages. 7.1 In that background, the moot questions arise before this Court is that whether the principle of res judicata would be applicable or not. 7.2 To examine the above question, this Court has referred the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Govindammal v. Vaidiyanathan , reported in (2019) 17 SCC 433 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held para No.19, which is as under; “19. This Court in Mahboob Sahab v. Syed Ismail [Mahboob Sahab v. Syed Ismail, (1995) 3 SCC 693 ], considering the applicability of the doctrine of res judicata between the co- defendants held that the following four conditions must be satisfied, namely, (SCC p. 698, para 8) “(1) there must be a conflict of interest between the defendants concerned; (2) it must be necessary to decide the conflict in order to give the reliefs which the plaintiff claims; (3) the question between the defendants must have been finally decided; and (4) the co-defendants were necessary or proper parties in the former suit.” To reach the conclusion mentioned above, this Court relied upon the judgments in Syed Mohd. Saadat Ali Khan v. Mirza Wiquar Ali Beg [Syed Mohd. Saadat Ali Khan v. Mirza Wiquar Ali Beg, 1943 SCC OnLine PC 15 : AIR 1943 PC 115 ], Shashibhushan Prasad Misra v. Babuaji Rai [Shashibhushan Prasad Misra v. Babuaji Rai, AIR 1970 SC 809 ] and Iftikhar Ahmed v. Syed Meharban Ali [Iftikhar Ahmed v. Syed Meharban Ali, (1974) 2 SCC 151 ] .” 7.3 In the considered opinion of this Court, prayer of regularization was not decided on merits by this Court therefore, impugned reference not barred by the res judicata and principle of res judicata would not be applicable and the relief cannot be denied on that ground. 7.4 Going further, if one would examine the merits of the case, then it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner had been serving since 2003 and on getting the relief of reinstatement with continuity and back wages, till date he has served on a contract basis. Undisputably, initial contract of 11 months was not extended further, but his service was not interrupted, though further extension was not granted. Undisputably, initial contract of 11 months was not extended further, but his service was not interrupted, though further extension was not granted. A contractual appointment is always viewed to be only for a short period or as a stop-gap arrangement, but in the instant case, the workman, who has been continued since 2003 and after serving his whole life with the respondent, if one would reject the claim of regularization only on the basis of the contractual employment, then it would be nothing but a misuse of the process of law. The State, being an ideal employer, should not adopt such a practice to exploit the workmen, taking the workman for years together and paying meager amount in comparison to regular employees. This Court has referred to the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo V/s. Union of India reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 , wherein, in an identical situation, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the said practices is efforts to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment. The Hon’ble Apex Court has further held the para No.10 as under: “ 10. Having given careful consideration to the submissions advanced and the material on record, we find that the appellants’ long and uninterrupted service, for periods extending well beyond ten years, cannot be brushed aside merely by labelling their initial appointments as part-time or contractual. The essence of their employment must be considered in the light of their sustained contribution, the integral nature of their work, and the fact that no evidence suggests their entry was through any illegal or surreptitious route. 7.5 On considering the overall facts as well as the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above case, it emerges that the petitioner has performed the essential task on contract basis, which had been continuous over extensive period since 2003 onwards. The work, which was perennial in nature, was taken from the present petitioners. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court that even contractual employees are also entitled for the benefit of permanency when the work has been taken for more than 2 decades. The work, which was perennial in nature, was taken from the present petitioners. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court that even contractual employees are also entitled for the benefit of permanency when the work has been taken for more than 2 decades. As per the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court, wherein it is held that Court must look beyond the surface labels and consider realities of employment : continuous, long-term service, indispensable duties and in absence of any mala-fide or illegality in their appointments require to give the status of permanency, though they were contractual employees. This Court has also considered the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad V/s. Employer I/R to Management of Food Corporation of India reported in 2014 (7) SCC 190, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that wherever Labour Court or Tribunal have statutory power to grant the relief to the workman it would include the power to grant the relief of accruing status of permanency to the contractual employees or daily rated employees. 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 regularization could be extended. This Court has also considered the submissions made by the learned AGP Mr. Davda on instructions from Anilkumar L. Parmar Principal Class-II Industrial Training Institute Khambhat that one sanctioned post is available, which remain vacant in the month of November, 2023. This Court is of the view that the petitioner would be entitled for the benefit of regularization from November, 2023, on the day when the post remained vacant. 8. Resultantly, the present petition is hereby allowed. Rule is made absolute. 9. The respondent is directed to pay the benefit of regularization from November, 2023. The petitioner would not be entitled for any other claim.