JUDGMENT :

Biren Vaishnav, J.

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocates appearing for the respective respondents, waives service of rule. With the consent of the learned advocates, taken up for final hearing today.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is working since 30.06.1988 as a 'Rojamdar' helper under the Deputy Executive Engineer, Surendranagar. The services of the petitioner after four years were terminated with effect from 01.07.1992. On being terminated the petitioner approached the Labour Court by filing a Reference (LCF) No.97 of 1995. The reference was allowed on 03.04.2006, by which, the Labour Court directed reinstatement without backwages. Both, the employer as well as the workman, approached this Court by filing respective special civil applications, the employer aggrieved by the order of reinstatement and the employee aggrieved by the order of denial of backwages.

Both these petitions were dismissed by a common order dated 12.01.2016. On reinstatement, the petitioner by an order dated 05.06.2017 was given the benefit of the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 as per the 5th Pay Commission.

3. Ms.Reena Kamani, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that while computing the benefits of the Resolution dated 17.10.1988, the relevant date for the purpose would be 03.04.2006.

3.1 Ms.Kamani, learned advocate, would rely on decisions rendered by this Court in Special Civil Application No.66 of 2019, wherein, considering the decision of the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.1132 of 2018, the Court held as under:

"8. Mr.Mishra would rely on a decision of the Division Bench dated 23.11.2012 rendered in case of Heirs of Decd. Dhirubhai Lavabhai Suvagiya and others v. Range Forest officer rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.1132 of 2018. Mr.Mishra would submit that in the aforesaid judgment, the Division Bench of this Court has relied upon decisions of the Supreme Court. Paras 4 to 7 of the said judgment read as under:

"4. In course of hearing, learned advocate for the appellants submitted that he would not press challenge in respect of reduction of back wages.

Even otherwise, learned Single Judge reduced the back wages to modify the award applying the facts and exercising his discretion in that respect. The grant of back wages is discretionary which exercise has undertaken by learned Single Judge and we, in Letters Patent Appeal, would not, in any case, substitute our view. Therefore, when part of the direction of learned Single Judge modifying the award of the Labour Court in respect of grant of back wages is not interfered with.

4.1 The third aspect which was really interjected by learned Single Judge was about grant of continuity. The Labour Court in its judgment and award granted continuity of service to all the workmen. The direction to grant continuity of service came to be set aside by learned Single Judge. He reasoned in paragraph No.18 that, "In view of the persons who were engaged without following procedure prescribed by law and who had not completed service of more than 4 to 5 years before they were relieved and that the persons who were engaged on adhoc and daily wage basis, the order directing the employer to treat their service continues for entire duration cannot be sustained.".

5. The direction of reinstatement of the workmen issued by the Labour Court and confirmed by the learned Single Judge was confined on the finding that there was a breach of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is trite principle that reinstatement when granted, in all ordinary circumstances, would accompany with grant of continuity of service. The reasoning that services of the workmen were only of four to five years or that they were the persons engaged in the ad hoc capacity, were not the valid or germane reasons in eye of law to set aside the benefit of continuity of service granted to them by the Labour Court.

6. In Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab and Haryana [(2002) 9