JUDGMENT :

Biren Vaishnav, J.

1. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned AGP Mr. Meet Thakkar 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 26.12.2006, 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 2011, 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 the workmen. The relief of back-wages was denied and the relief of continuity of service was not denied specifically and that in the relief of reinstatement granted, the word 'continuity' was not mentioned.

5.1 The Court observed to lay down that "It may be straightaway observed that once the relief of reinstatement is granted, the continuity of service is a direct consequence rather inherent in the relief of this nature". It was held that when the relief of reinstatement was granted and the continuity of service was not specifically denied, the workman has to be relegated to the same position as was held by it at the time of termination. When the order of termination was found to be void, the petitioner, it was held, would be entitled to hold the relief of reinstatement with continuity where there was no mention of specific denial to such continuity.

5.2 The Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab and others [2002 (92) FLR 838], held that once the plaintiff was directed to be reinstated in service upon setting aside of the order of termination, continuity of service could not be denied. The Court observed that the case was not of fresh appointment but it was one of reinstatement and that being the position, it was observed that the High Court was in error in denying the continuity of service.

6. Thus and therefore, even though the judgment and award of the Labour Court had not expressly granted the continuity, at the same time it did not deny the continuity in any expressed terms. The grant of continuity would have to be read with the order of reinstatement. The petitioner would be entitled to be treated continuous in service upon reinstatement. Resultantly, the petitioner would be entitled to be granted the benefits of resolution dated 17.10.1988 accordingly by reckoning his services C/SCA/13095/2016 ORDER the Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh (supra), the concept of continuity could not be distinguished for the purpose of granting any other service benefits. Learned Assistant Government Pleader made a failed attempt to submit that the continuity for the purpose of granting benefits under resolution dated 17.10.1988 may be treated differently. Any such distinction would be artificial distinction, once the labour court granted the reinstatement and the continuity was not expressly denied, the continuity benefit could be said to be deemed to have been granted and by deeming fiction the services of the petitioners should have to be treated as continuous upon their reinstatement.

6.2 Not only that the averments in the petition remained undisputed that other similarly situated employees shri Pravinbhai Madhavbhai, shri Manubhai Govindbhai and shri Maheboob Husainbhai in whose favour also there was judgment and award of the labour court in similar way, they were shown