M.R. SHAH, J.

As common question of law and facts arise in both these Letters Patent Appeals, they are disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application Nos. 10667/2012 and 10666/2012 by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the said Special Civil Applications and has confirmed the respective awards passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) No. 60/1996 and Reference (IT) No. 36/1996 respectively, by which the learned Industrial Tribunal rejected the claim of the original workman of regularization and/or permanency and rejected the said references, the original workmen have preferred the present Letters Patent Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

3. The facts leading to the present Letters Patent Appeals in nutshell are as under:

4. That both the appellants herein - original workmen were serving as daily wagers. They raised an industrial dispute and claimed that on completion of 240 days, they are entitled to the permanency and they are required to be paid the pay scale which has been paid to the permanent employees. That on appreciation of evidence and having found that their appointments as daily wagers were not on the sanctioned post and after following due procedure of recruitment/selection and therefore, merely on completion of 240 days, they cannot claim permanency and/or the pay scale which was being paid to the permanent employees, following decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, the learned Industrial Tribunal rejected/dismissed the aforesaid references.

5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the respective judgments and awards passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) No. 60/1996 and Reference (IT) No. 36/1996, the respective original workman preferred the aforesaid two Special Civil Application Nos. 10667/2012 and 10666/2012 before this Court. That by impugned common judgment and order the learned Single Judge has dismissed the said petitions.

6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the petitions, the original petitioners - original workman have preferred the present Letters Patent Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

7. Shri G.M Joshi, learned Advocate and Shri M.B Parikh, learned Advocates have appeared on behalf of the original workman. Shri Bhavesh Trivedi, learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondent Nagarpalika, Shri H.S Munshaw, learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of the District Development Officer, District Panchayat, Taluka Panchayat and Shri Rohan Yagnik, learned Assistant Government Pleader has appeared on behalf of the State Authorities.

8. Shri G.M Joshi, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant in LPA No. 1284/2016 has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Single Judge has materially erred in dismissing the petition and confirming the judgment and award passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal rejecting the reference. It is vehemently submitted by Shri Joshi, learned Advocate that as such even before the learned Single Judge it was a case of remand. It is submitted that in the present case as such the learned Single Judge has specifically observed and held on appreciation of evidence that as such both the workmen were possessing requisite qualifications. It is submitted that even the learned Single Judge has also specifically observed that though the respondent claimed that there was no vacancy on permanent and sanctioned establishment, the respondent failed to place on record the details with regard to permanent/regular sanctioned set up of the corporation and the sanctioned posts of clerks and as to whether at the relevant time any of the sanctioned