JUDGMENT :

Biren Vaishnav, J.

1. In view of the averments made in the memo of the Civil Application for fixing date of hearing, the same is allowed and the main matter is taken up for final hearing today.

2. Heard Mr. Krishnan Ghevariya learned advocate for Mr. Murli Devnani learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Meet Thakkar learned AGP for the respondent State.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of the resolution dated 17.10.1988 in view of the fact that the award of the Labour Court though silent on the aspect of continuity of service which was actually meant to have given such benefit.

4. Mr. Ghevariya would rely on the order dated 15.09.2021 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 14297 of 2019.

5. Mr. Meet Thakkar would rely on paragraphs 4 to 6 of the affidavit in reply filed to submit that the petitioner was employed in the year 1987-88 in the project 'Gramya Marg Yojna' as unskilled daily wager. He was retained for the road site for this particular project only and after completion of which in the year 1988-1989, he was no more retained and therefore he is not entitled to the benefits of the resolution dated 17.10.1988. The petitioner after the order was challenged in Special Civil Application No. 23927 of 2007 by respondent on a direction was reinstated in service and the same was complied with on 02.04.2013.

6. This Court while dealing with the similar issue, in Special Civil Application No. 14297 of 2019, on 15.09.2021 has passed the order. The relevant paragraphs of which read as under:

"8. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

9. As noted herein above, the award of the Labour Court dated 30.10.2012 in Reference (LCR) No. 219 of 2001 has become final. By the said award, the respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner without any back wages, however, the Labour Court has failed to observe anything with regard to continuity of service. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the decision of the Division Bench. The Division Bench in a similar set of facts while examining the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 has held thus:-

"8. The undisputed fact in the present appeal is that the respondent-workman was terminated from the service in the Year-1998 and his termination was quashed and set aside by the award dated 12.01.2007. The Labour Court had directed the present appellants to reinstate the present respondent-workman without backwages on his original post, however, no specific reference was made regarding continuity of service. The Apex Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh (Supra) has specifically observed that once the termination is set-aside, the workman will be entitled for continuity of service since the same is not fresh appointment, but it is a case of reinstatement. Accordingly, the workman was reinstated by the order dated 06.10.2008 on his original post, and thereafter, also, it is undisputed fact he was conferred the benefit of regular pay-scale till he retired on 13.11.2013 after rendering 5 years of service.

9. It is no more res-integra that, as per Resolution dated 17.10.1988, the workman would be entitled to pension and other retirement benefits after completion of 10 years of service. In present case, the termination of the workman is found to be illegal and he was reinstated in service and was also paid regular pay scale. Thus, he was forced to remain unemployed for the interregnum period. The Labour Court, after examining the documents on record, has given a specific finding that the workman had worked for 12 years before his termination and he had also completed 240 days service. Thereafter, he was reinstatement on 06.10.2008 and till his retirement on 30.11.2013, he had completed 5 years. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and has only directed the Pension Fixation Authority to pass appropriate orders of fixation in accordance with law and it is furt