( 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 continuity of service too. However, since the labour court has not clearly stated so while making award of reinstatement in favour of the petitioner without back wages for the intervening period, the respondents have not given him continuity of service and, therefore, present petition has been filed by the petitioner for the purpose of clarification that the word reinstatement shall include reinstatement with continuity of service.

( 3 ) LEARNED AGP Mr. Dave appearing for the State Authority has submitted that the labour court has not specifically directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service for the intervening period. According to his submission, the petitioner cannot be permitted to read the thing which is not there in the order made by the labour court and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for such relief.

( 4 ) I have considered the submissions made by both the learned advocates. There are ways of granting order of reinstatement by the labour court. If the order of reemployment would have been passed by the labour court, then, naturally, continuity of service would not have been there but once reinstatement has been granted, it would include continuity of service too, impliedly. This aspect has been considered by the apex court in case of Sanat Kumar Dwivedi versus Dhar Jila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Maryadit and Others reported in 2001 AIR SCW 2430. In para 3 of the said decision, the apex court has observed as under :"3. IT is clarified that this order will not be treated to be resulting in any break in service of the appellant. He will be deprived of only the back wages. The continuity of service and all other notional benefits on that basis will be available to him. It appears that when the order of reinstatement was granted, except depriving him of back wages, it necessarily meant that the continuity of service was implicit in the reinstatement. Even condition Nos. 1 and 2 of the order of reinstatement clearly indicate that he is reinstated in service with continuity as pay scales and other benefits were also directed to be given. "

( 5 ) SIMILARLY, this court has also examined this aspect in case of Vasantika R. Dalia versus Baroda Municipal Corporation reported in 1998 - I CLR 32. In para 2 of the said judgment, it has been observed by this Court as under :"2. THE present petitioner workman had also filed Special Civil Application NO. 5497 of 1998 contesting for the back wages and consequential reliefs and, thus, 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, ther