JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned advocates for the parties.

2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed against the non granting of benefit of Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the petitioner.

3. The facts of the case would indicate that the petitioner on being terminated had approached the Labour Court by raising a dispute by way of Ref. (LCS) No. 274 of 1992. By an award dated 11.06.1997, the reference was partly allowed and the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated with 20% backwages.

4. The only ground on which the petitioner seems to be deprived of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 that the award of the Labour Court specifically does not mention 'Continuity of Service'.

4.1 Ms. Mandavia, learned advocate for the respondents no. 2 to 4 has relied on the decision of this court rendered in SCA No. 8366 of 2015 which was confirmed by the Division Bench of this court in LPA No. 1214 of 2019. She has also relied on the decision of the Division Bench in another appeal being LPA No. 492 of 2016. Reliance is also placed by Ms. Mandavia on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of A.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others v. Abdul Kareem [(2005) 6 SCC 36].

5. This court in Special Civil Application No. 131 of 2019 has observed as under:

"5. The issue whether in absence of a specific direction of continuity of service being not mentioned in the award and if that be so whether it should be interpreted to be granting such benefit was considered recently by this court in SCA No. 66 of 2019 dated 27.01.2022. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced hereinbelow:

"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