P. Sam Koshy, J.

1. This bunch of Writ Petitions, except for Writ Petition (S) No. 2279 of 2016, Writ Petition (S) No. 2264 of 2016, Writ Petition (S) No. 2451 of 2016 and Writ Petitions (S) No. 4816 of 2016, has been placed before the Division Bench by the learned Single Bench vide its order dated 5.10.2015 passed in Writ Petition (S) No. 4903 of 2014 and other analogous petitions and have been referred to be considered and decided by a larger Bench in view of the matter assuming general importance.

2. The reason to send these matters to the Division Bench also was on account of the fact that the different Single Benches of this High Court have taken a view that once the order of retrenchment/discontinuance of employment is set aside by the Labour Court and the workman is reinstated in employment it has to be presumed that he stood in continuous employment. In other words, the period during which the workman was out of employment by virtue of an illegal termination order would also have to be counted for the purpose of calculating the total length of service. This view according to the learned Single Bench referring the matter to the larger Bench was perhaps contrary to the view laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the landmark judgment of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Umadevi and Others, 2006 (4) SCC 1, as also in the case of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited vs. Dan Bahadur Singh and Others, 2007 (6) SCC 207.

3. The four Writ Petitions which have been referred to in paragraph 1 herein above are those which are not referred by the learned Single Bench in its order dated 5.10.2015, but are matters which have been separately ordered by the learned Single Bench to be listed along with this bunch of referred matters as the issue involved remains similar.

4. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of adjudicating the issue involved in the present case are that the workers involved in these cases are all employees working in the office of the Respondents, i.e. either in the Forest Department or in the Public Works Department or Water Resources Department; some are in the Irrigation Department and likewise a few are also employees of the Municipal Council. They were all initially appointed as daily wage workers and have worked for a considerable period of time. Services of these workmen stood discontinued on different dates and years. The alleged discontinuance of the respective workmen was challenged before the concerned Labour Court and in each of the cases, the Labour Court has allowed the case in their favour and has granted the relief of reinstatement. By virtue of the order of reinstatement, those workmen are still continuing in services. Details of each of the workers in this bunch of Writ Petitions can be visualized from the chart given below:-

S. No.	Case No.	Workmen's name	Department	Date of Appointment	Date of Removal	Date of Award of Labour Court/Industrial Court	Date of Reinstatement
1.	WP (S) 4903/2014	Nakul Singh Thakur	Forest	1987	1994	15.2.2012	Exact date not known
2.	WP (S) 1703/2015	Tukaram	Forest	1992	25.1.2000	28.3.2007	15.5.2007
3.	WP (S) 1277/2015	Vinay Kumar Namdev	Forest	17.3.1995	18.2.2000	27.7.2009	Exact date not known
4.	WP (S) 1426/2015	Durga Prasad	PWD	1991	Permanent Gangman	4.2.1999	Exact date not known
5.	WP (S) 2256/2015	Sandeep Verma	Water Resources Department	1.1.1990	1995	16.2.2012	26.3.2012
6.	WP (S) 2206/2015	Balram Sahu	Irrigation Department	1.1.1989	31.7.1994	15.11.11	27.1.2012
7.	WP (S) 2215/2015	Nursingh Sahu	Water Resources Department	15.5.1989	31.7.1994	15.11.11	27.1.2012
8.	WP (S) 2264/2016	Pila Das	Municipal Council	27.12.1987	11.1.2000	2.9.2015	8.12.2015
9.	WP (S) 2279/2015	Mohit Ram & Other