JUDGMENT :

Biren Vaishnav, J.

1. Both these petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have been filed by the petitioners praying for a direction to extend the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 with effect from 01.01.1990 notionally upto 30.05.2006 and further be pleased to direct the respondents to give difference of salary from 31.05.2006.

2. For the sake of convenience, facts of Special Civil Application No. 131 of 2019 are referred to herein. The petitioner was employed as a daily wager since 1985. His services were orally terminated from 27.11.1990. He along with several co-employees raised an industrial dispute. The Labour Court, Surendranagar by an award dated 30.05.2006 directed respondents no. 3 and 4 to reinstate the petitioner and other seven co-employees. The petition challenging the award was dismissed on 19.12.2007. Letters Patent Appeal was also dismissed by a common order on 22.12.2009. The petitioner was reinstated on 16.02.2010. A Recovery Application was filed and the same was partly allowed. After reinstatement, the petitioner worked continuously from 16.03.2010. However, for the purposes of granting the benefits of the resolution dated 17.10.1988, their date of appointment was taken as 16.03.2010 and on completion of five years from that date, the benefit of resolution was given. The interpretation was that there was no clarification in the award regarding continuity of service.

3. Mr. Nilesh Shah, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of this court rendered in SCA No. 66 of 2019 dated 27.01.2022 which has considered several decisions on this issue including the decision of the Apex Court.

4. Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 relying on the affidavit has submitted that the award was without backwages and continuity. Therefore the petitioners were not entitled to the benefit of the resolution from the date of initial appointment. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 492 of 2016 in the case of Executive Engineer v. Dudhabhai Khemabhai Makwana dated 12.07.2016. Reliance was placed on para 7 of the said decision.

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 prescribe