SM 1 wp.2586.11.gr. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2586 OF 2011 Union of India and Another .... Petitioners Versus Mr. Eiknath Ganpat Pawar .... Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2587 OF 2011 Union of India and Another .... Petitioners Versus Shri. Sudhir Narayan More .... Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2588 OF 2011 Union of India and Another .... Petitioners Versus Shri. Manoj Mahadeo Goyathale .... Respondent ______________ Mr. A. D. Shetty a/w Ms. Naveena Kumai for the Petitioner. Mr. Rahul Walia for the Respondent. CORAM: A. M. KHANWILKAR AND R. Y. GANOO, JJ. DATE: JUNE 9, 2011. P.C.: 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. These Petitions SM 2 wp.2586.11.gr. take exception to the judgment of the Tribunal which has directed the Petitioners to regularise the Respondents in all the above Petitions as 'Sweepers' against the appropriate Group-D posts. The conclusion reached by the Tribunal is on the basis of similar issue decided by the Tribunal on the earlier occasion. Following that decision, relief was granted to the Respondents. It is also noticed from the record that the said decision of the Tribunal was challenged before this Court by way of writ petition being Writ Petition No. 6479 of 2008, which, however, was dismissed on 16 th November, 2009. The said decision was then assailed by way of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 9219-9220/2010. Even the said S.L.P. came to be dismissed on 9 th July, 2010, meaning thereby, that the decision of the Tribunal in the earlier matter has been confirmed right upto the Supreme Court. The Respondents have heavily relied on the said decision and contended that the same applies on all fours to the case of the Respondents. That contention has been accepted by the Tribunal. SM 3 wp.2586.11.gr. 2. The only argument in the cases before us is that the fact situation in the earlier case and the present are different. The respondent(s) in these cases were appointed on contract basis after the contract was given to Shri. Eknath G. Pawar. Even this argument has been considered on the earlier occasion in O. A. No. 467 of 2005 decided on 4 th July, 2007. The Tribunal has extracted paragraph 7 of the said decision which squarely deals with similar argument. In our opinion, the opinion recorded by the Tribunal in previous judgment which has been upheld by this Court as well as by the Apex Court will bind the petitioner- Union of India. We fail to understand, as to why the Union of India is raising the same arguments in different set of cases. Instead, the Union of India should act as a fair employer and extend benefits given by the Tribunal in the earlier case to all similarly placed persons. It is not open to the Union of India to doubt the correctness of the earlier decision which has attained finality in successive proceedings. SM 4 wp.2586.11.gr. 3. In so far as the respondent in W.P. No. 2586 of 2011 is concerned, it is not in dispute that he was in employment as Sweeper since year 2000 till the contract system was introduced after the decision in Umadevi's case. The fact remains that he has been working with the petitioner since year 2000 and has continued to do the same work in different capacity under the contract which aspect has already been dealt with in the earlier set of cases decided by the Tribunal. Accordingly, all these Petitions are dismissed. (R. Y. GANOO, J.) (A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.)