( 1 ) HEARD learned Counsel. The petitioner was employed with Baroda Municipal Corporation on 7-7-1975 as Stenographer and her services were terminated in January/february, 1997 without following requirements of S. 25f of the Industrial Disputes Act. Of course, in the meantime for a short period of three months by an order dated 14-10-1977 she had been given an employment as Typist. However, the petitioner had raised a dispute about her unlawful termination in January/february, 1977 from the post of stenographer. This dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Baroda. On 28-3-1988 in Reference (L. C. A.) No. 14 of 1980, the Labour Court, Baroda granted relief of reinstatement in favour of the petitioner without any back wages whatsoever. Against this award dated 28-3-1988, Baroda Municipal Corporation preferred Special Civil application No. 3483 of 1988 contesting the relief of reinstatement as was granted by the Labour Court but this petition failed. While rejecting the Corporations petition summarily the Division Bench observed that "in February, 1977 when the respondent was terminated from service as Stenographer provision of S. 25f was violated by the petitioner-Corporation and therefore, her termination was void".

( 2 ) THE present petitioner-workman had also filed Special Civil Application No. 5497 of 1988 contesting for the back wages and consequential reliefs and this Special civil Application filed by the workman was dismissed and the notice was discharged. The award dated 28-3-1988 as aforesaid thus attained the finality. It appears that this award dated 28-3-1988 granting relief of reinstatement to the workman was not implemented by the respondent-Corporation and therefore, a Miscellaneous Civil application No. 655 of 1988 in the nature of contempt application had been filed by the petitioner-workman and this Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 655 of 1988 was decided by the Division Bench while noticing the statement of learned Counsel mr. P. G. Desai for the respondent that it had complied with the direction given by the Labour Court in as much as the petitioner has been reinstated in service. The division Bench has also observed that there was some delay in reinstating the petitioner on the original post and therefore, the statement of Mr. Desai was also noted that the wages for the period for which the delay had been caused in complying with the direction will be paid to her on or before 12-10-1990. In view of this statement the Division Bench found that the application did not survive and the same was disposed of as having become infructuous. In this background the dispute has now precipitated between the parties about the continuity of service, i. e. , from january, 1977 to 23-8-1988 when she was reinstated on the basis of the award dated 28-3-1988. The Assistant Municipal Commissioner, 5th Zone, Baroda has passed an order that all the grievances of the petitioner were included in Special Civil application No. 5497 of 1988 and this Special Civil Application had been rejected on 18-6-1992 and therefore, her request for granting continuity of service cannot be entertained. This order dated 30-10-1996 passed by the Assistant Municipal commissioner, 5th Zone, Baroda is under challenge in this petition. Though it is mentioned in the award dated 28-3-1988 that the relief of reinstatement is granted while denying the back wages, nothing has been said in the positive terms with regard to the continuity of service or otherwise but the fact remains that the relief of continuity has not been denied by any specific mention as has been done for the back wages. Thus, the petitioner may have failed before the Division Bench in getting the relief of back wages for the intervening period but that does not mean the forfeiture of the continuity of the service because it is not a case of denying the continuity of service by and positive penal order. The rejection of the petitioners special Civil Application No. 5497