BIREN VAISHNAV, J.

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the appellant, who was the original petitioner before the Learned Single Judge. Being aggrieved by the Award of the Industrial Tribunal passed in Reference (I.T.) No.66 of 1991 dated 30.08.2004, by which the respondents were directed to be regularised in service on completion of five years in service and were directed to be paid regular benefits with arrears with effect from 1.1.1995, resulted in the appellant in filing such a petition which was partly allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgement and order dated 07.03.2013.

2. Facts in brief are as under :

2.1 Ten part time workers, engaged by the District Rural Development Agency, Junagadh - the appellant herein - original petitioner approached the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot. They raised an Industrial Dispute which was referred to the Tribunal. The Reference was to the effect that such ten employees engaged by the agency be made permanent and be given benefits akin to permanent employees.

2.2 A statement of claim was filed at Exh.5, before the Industrial Tribunal raising a demand that the ten workmen were engaged with the Agency for the past several years i.e. from the period 1983 to 1987 and therefore had completed 5 years or more in service. It was their case that having been engaged to do regular work which was perennial with the agency over a long period of time, not regularising them and paying them regular pay amounted to unfair labour practice.

2.3 The appellant filed its response before the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot at Exh.8, stating that the agency was receiving grant from the Government to implement the rural programmes of the Government and 10% of such grant was spent on the establishment expenses. The workmen before the Tribunal were only engaged on a part-time basis, not on the regular establishment. They carried out miscellaneous work of cleaning, delivering post etc., which work was not a work of permanent nature. They were just engaged without any process and looking to the fact that the agency was getting grant for implementation of the projects for the Rural Development, the agency was not required to grant them benefits of permanency.

2.4 After considering various decisions of the Supreme Court cited by the respective parties, the Industrial Tribunal came to the conclusion that the workmen before the Tribunal were engaged for the past several years and the agency, in not extending the benefits of permanency was committing unfair labour practice and therefore by the Award dated 30.08.2004, the Tribunal directed the appellant - agency to regularise the services of the respondents from the date they completed five years and further directed that the monetary benefits akin to regular employees at the rate of 50% arrears be paid to them with effect from 1.1.1995.

2.5 This Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot was challenged by the appellant before the learned Single Judge. Similar contentions as raised before the Tribunal were raised before the learned Single Judge. It was contended by the appellant's advocate before the learned Single Judge that the respondents were only part time employees engaged for the purpose of implementation of the directions of the State and the Central Government and carry out miscellaneous work namely to open office, cleaning of office and looking after postal work. As the posts are not sanctioned posts, the respondents were engaged as daily wagers. According to the original petitioner - appellant herein, the Tribunal committed an error granting the benefit of regularisation when the respondents were not engaged through a regular selection process and were not appointed as such on sanctioned posts.

2.6 Considering the submissions of the advocate for the employer, the learned Single Judge, by the impugned judgement upheld the award holding that there was a relationship of employer-employee and that since the respondents had worked for last ma