J.B.PARDIWALA,J. - (1.)This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is at the instance of the original writ applicants of a writ application and is directed against the judgment and order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 07.09.2016 in the Special Civil Application No.12428 of 2012, by which, the learned Single Judge rejected the writ application.
(2.)The facts, giving rise to this writ application, may be summarized as under;
2.1 The appellants herein are the Union and the original claimants. The claimant herein was appointed on the post of peon by the respondent No.1 Amreli Nagarpalika vide order dated 21.12.1983. As on date also, the claimant is in service, but as a daily wager drawing daily wages in accordance with the Minimum Wages Act. It appears that the claimant herein went before the Tribunal and prayed for regularization of his service. The claimant prayed before the Tribunal that he should be conferred the status of being a permanent workman and should be paid salary and other perquisites at par with the regular and permanent workmen. The Tribunal rejected the claim.

2.2 In such circumstances, referred to above, the claimant came before this Court by filing the Special Civil Application No.12428 of 2012. The learned Single Judge heard the Special Civil Application No.12428 of 2012 along with the allied writ applications and a common judgment was delivered. The claimant herein lost before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge, while rejecting the writ application filed by the claimant, observed in Para-13 as under;

"So far as the case of the claimant in other cases i.e. Special Civil Application No.9811 of 2013 (where the concerned claimant works as labourer in construction department) and Special Civil Application No.15089 of 2012 (where the concerned claimant works as cleaner in fire department) and Special Civil Application No.12428 of 2013 (where the concerned claimant works as peon) and Special Civil Application No.18229 of 2013 (wherein the concerned claimant is working as cleaner) are concerned, it has emerged from the award that after taking into account the sanctioned set up, the learned Tribunal has recorded finding of fact that on sanctioned set up either the said post is not approved / sanctioned or any vacancy in respect of the said post does not exist and when the said findings are taken into account, then, it emerges that in light of the above quoted observations by Hon'ble Apex Court in cases of Hari Nandan Prasan & Anr. (supra), Umadevi (supra) and M.L.Kansari (supra), the final decision of the learned Labour Court as regards the claimants who are engaged as and working as labourer and peon i.e. Special Civil Application No.9811 of 2013 and Special Civil Application No.12428 of 2012 cannot be faulted. Therefore, so far as award challenged in Special Civil Application No. 9811 of 2013 i.e. award dated 14.12.2011 in Reference Case No. 56 of 2010 and the award challenged in Special Civil Application No. 12428 of 2012 i.e. award dated 9.4.2012 in Reference Case No. 52 of 2012 with reference to Mr. R.L. Bhatt are not disturbed and the said awards are confirmed. The said two petitions i.e. Special Civil Application No. 9811 of 2013 and Special Civil Application No. 12428 of 2012 are not accepted."

2.3 It is pertinent to note at this stage that in the above referred Para-13 of the impugned judgment, we find reference of the Special Civil Application No.9811 of 2013. This writ application filed by one another workman was also ordered to be rejected by the learned Single Judge by the very same judgment impugned in the present appeal. The Letters Patent Appeal No.1673 of 2017 was filed by the concerned workman of the Special Civil Application No.9811 of 2013. A Coordinate Bench of this Court dismissed the appeal and thereby affirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Letters Patent Appeal No.1673 of 2017 came to be dismissed substantially relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad & Anr. vs. Employer I/R to Management of FCI & Anr., 2014 7 SCC 190.

2.4 Being dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, the original writ applicant has come up with the present appeal.

(3.)Mr. G.M. Joshi, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Vyom Shah, the learned advocate appearing for the appellants clarified, at the outset, that on the very same day and date on which the Letters Patent Appeal No.1673 of 2017 arising from the Special Civil Application No.9811 of 2013 came to be dismissed, notice was issued by the very same Bench in the present letters patent appeal and the appeal was ordered to be notified for final hearing after the summer vacation of 2018. According to Mr. Joshi, the order passed by a Coordinate Bench in the Letters Patent Appeal No.1673 of 2017 should not come in the way of the present appellants as the case of the present appellants stands on a different footing.