JUDGMENT :

1. RULE returnable forthwith. Mr. Kurven Desai learned AGP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent.

2. The petitioner claims all the benefits of resolution dated 17.10.1988 on the basis of an award of the Labour Court dated 15.12.2005 which directs that the petitioner be reinstated with 20% of back-wages.

The award of the Labour Court was confirmed by an oral order dated 24.12.2013 in Special Civil Application No.25328 of 2006.

3. The petitioner was appointed as a daily-wager in June 1986 and was illegally terminated in 1988 and as a result of that, he had to approach the Labour Court as stated herein above.

4. Mr. N.R. Langa learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is similarly situated employee of the petitioners of Special Civil Application No.18284 of 2019, wherein, this Court by an order dated 24.06.2020 held as under:

"7. In view of the fact that this Court, by an order dated 13.4.2010 passed in Special Civil Application Nos.4431 with 4432 to 4436 of 2010 has modified the award and granting continuity of service, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for extending the benefits of GR dated 17.10.1988 in accordance with the decision of PWD and Forest Employees Union (Supra) Such a decision shall be taken by the concerned respondents within a period of Eight Weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It will be open for the respondents if they want to consider the case of the petitioners in context of prayer (C) of the petition after verifying the records."

5. Learned AGP Mr. Kurven Desai would rely on the affidavit in reply on behalf of the respondents and submit that since the benefits of 'continuity of service' was not specifically referred to the award of the Labour Court, the benefit of the resolution dated 17.10.1988 cannot be granted. Moreover, the resolution was only applicable to the daily workman serving in the Forest and Environment Department.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for the respective parties, this Court recently in the case of Vishnuji Sursingji Thakore Versus State of Gujarat rendered in Special Civil Application No.66 of 2019, relying on the decision in case of Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab and Haryana [(2002) 9 SCC 492] held as under:

"9. Emphasis is made by Mr. Mishra on the observations of the Division Bench that when there is an award of reinstatement, continuity of service would follow as a matter of law. Decision in case of Nandkishore Shravan Ahirrao v. Kosan Industries (P) Ltd. [AIR 2020 SC 1776] is also relied upon and paragraphs 6 to 8 are referred to. Reliance is also placed on the decision in case of Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab and Haryana [(2002) 9 SCC 492].

10. Mr.Mishra would also rely upon the Division Bench decision of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.485 of 2017 dated 20.07.2021. It was relied upon by the coordinate bench of this Court while dealing with an order in case of Hamirbhai Meghabhai Gohil v. State of Gujarat passed in Special Civil Application No.21123 of 2018 on 03.01.2022. Paragraphs 11 to 20 of this order read as under:

"11. The facts, as narrated hereinabove, are not in dispute. The Labour Court vide award dated 29.03.2007 while examining the case of the present petitioner and the co-employee namely Danabhai Kalabhai in Reference (LCS) No.184 of 2000 has directed the respondent authorities to reinstate him on his original post. However, it appears that no directions were issued with regard to continuity of service. Shri Danabhai Kalabhai had approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No.18154 of 2015 claiming the same relief as claimed by the present petitioner since he was denied the benefit flowing from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. A similar contention was raised, which is raised in the present petition that since the Labour Court did not observe with regard to continuity of service, the benefit of the Go