JUDGMENT :

Biren Vaishnav, J.

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Kurven Desai, learned AGP, waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent - State.

2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, while issuing notice in the petition, this Court passed the following order:

"Heard learned Advocate Mr. Nilesh M. Shah for the petitioner and learned AGP Ms. Surbhi Bhati for the respondent-State.

By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court for conferment of benefits available to the petitioner under Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 from the date of entry of the petitioner in service and not from the date of the award of the learned Labour Court.

Learned Advocate Mr. Shah would submit that while the petitioner had joined services with the respondents from the year 1982, the petitioner along with other co-employees had been terminated from the services of the respondents orally and whereas the petitioners having raised a dispute and the matter having been decided by the learned Labour Court, Surendranagar in Reference (LCS) No. 7 of 2002 directing that the petitioners be reinstated in service. Learned Advocate Mr. Shah would submit that the respondents while conferring the benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 are considering the date of 12.09.2006 i.e. the date on which the learned Labour Court had passed the award in question as the date of entry of petitioner in service and whereas according to the learned Advocate, the petitioner is entitled to be granted benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 with effect from 01.10.1988.

Having regard to the submissions made by learned Advocate Mr. Shah for the petitioner, issue Notice to the respondents returnable on 14.02.2022. Learned AGP Ms. Bhati waives service of notice for the respondent No. 1."

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner joined service in the year 1982. He was subsequently terminated. On raising an industrial dispute, the Labour Court by an award dated 12.09.2006 directed reinstatement without backwages. Contention of Mr. Nilesh Shah, learned counsel, is that in absence of specific denial of continuity, the same has to be read into the award of the Labour Court. Accordingly, he press the benefits of the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 except those of Leave Encashment on the basis of his 38 years of continuous service rendered from the date of appointment till the date of retirement i.e. 31.03.2021 be granted.

4. This Court in Special Civil Application No. 389 of 2020 of even date has held as under:

"1 Since the issue involved in the main petition is covered by the decisions rendered by this Court, Civil Application for fixing date of hearing is allowed and with the consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, the main matter is taken up for hearing today.

1. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned AGP Mr. Kurven Desai waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondents.

2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the prayer of the petitioner is to direct the respondents to grant the benefits of the resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the petitioner from initial date of joining considering the fact that by virtue of the award of the Labour Court dated 29.08.2009, reinstatement was granted with continuity of service, in the award made though not have specifically mentioned the word "continuity".

3. Mr. P.C. Chaudhary learned counsel for the petitioner would draw the attention of this court to a decision rendered by the coordinate bench of this Court in Special Civil Application Nos. 13095 of 2016 and 2192 of 2017, wherein considering several decisions of this Court including the decision of the Supreme Court, the Court in Special Civil Application Nos. 13095 of 2016 held as under:

"5. In Vasantika R. Dalia v. Baroda Municipal Corporation [1998 (2) LLJ 172], this Court was posed to interpret the judgment and award of the Labour Court which granted the relief of reinstatement to