Point in Issue :
Whether in the facts of the case petitioner is entitled to pension.

Jayant Patel, J.—The present appeal arises against the order dated 7.10.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 9527 of 2010, whereby the petition has been dismissed for the entitlement of the pension to the petitioner.

2. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the learned AGP for the respondents for final disposal.

3. The facts as such are not much in dispute and the only question to be considered in the present matter is whether by virtue of the award of the Labour Court, the appellant would be entitled to continuity in service and consequently to the benefits of the Government Resolution permitting pension to the daily wager, who worked for a period exceeding ten years or not.

4. The relevant facts are that the original petitioner – appellant herein was engaged as daily wager in the year 1981 and thereafter he worked for a long time. It is the case of the appellant that it was continuous work, whereas the respondents contended that the work was not continuous. As per the appellant, his services were illegally terminated without following the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ ), whereas the respondents contended that the appellant had abandoned the service. Ultimately, the dispute came to be raised under the Act, which was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The Labour Court in Reference (LCH) No. 532 of 1996 passed the award dated 19.9.2005, whereby the Reference was partly allowed and the reinstatement was ordered with continuity in service to the original post with 10% backwages. It is undisputed position that the said award of the Labour Court has become final and no challenge is made by the respondents at any point of time. Pursuant to the award of the Labour Court, the appellant has been reinstated on 28.3.2006. The appellant worked thereafter and he reached the age of superannuation on 30.11.2008. As per the appellant, he was entitled for the treatment of his service as continuous and consequently the pension in accordance with law. As no pension was paid to the appellant – original petitioner, nor his service was treated as pensionable, the original petitioner preferred petition before this Court, which ultimately came to be rejected by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the appeal before us.

5. It appears to us that when the award of the Labour Court has become final and the respondents have also accepted the award and reinstated the original petitioner, the original petitioner would be entitled to all benefits as accrued upon him pursuant to the award of the Labour Court. The award of the Labour Court provides for reinstatement in service to the original position with continuity in service, meaning thereby the status of the original petitioner would be continued as daily wager and he would be entitled to continuity in service. If the continuity in service is to be considered the period during which his services were terminated and when the award was passed and thereafter the original petitioner was reinstated in service, is to be treated as notional in service for the purpose of extending the benefits of continuity in service. It is undisputed position that the continuity in service to be counted for the total service from the date of joining in 1981 till 2008 would come to about 27 years and more. As contended by the learned AGP, the Government Resolution and the policy does provide that if a person has worked as daily wager for a period exceeding 10 years, then he may be entitled for the status as that an employee entitled for the pension. It was submitted that the period of ten years is to be considered on the basis of actual working of the original petitioner and not notionally as sought to be canvassed on behalf of the appellant.

6. We find that the said contention, if accepted, would run counter to the award passed by the Labour Court. The period during which the case was pending before