( 1 ) HEARD learned advocate Mr. Pathak for the petitioner, Mr. Dave, learned AGP for the respondent State and Mr. Nitin Pandya, learned advocate for respondents no. 2 and 3. This Court has issued rule in this matter and notice as to interim relief was also issued by making it returnable on 9/12/1993. Thereafter, this court has again issued rule on 18th August, 1994 and the matter was fixed for final disposal. The facts of the case of the petitioner herein is that the services of the petitioner were terminated on 14th March, 1984 by the respondent and the said action of termination of his services was challenged by the petitioner by raising industrial dispute by filing reference No. 269 of 1987 wherein the labour court has passed award on 13/03/1992 and the petitioner has been ordered to be reinstated in service without back wages for the intervening period.

( 2 ) DURING the course of hearing, learned advocate Mr. Pathak appearing for the petitioner has submitted that though the reinstatement has been granted to the petitioner, the respondents have not granted continuity of service to the petitioner. According to his submission, reinstatement would include continuit