The key legal principle established is the grant of continuity of service from the date of reference in 1993 and entitlement to pensionary benefits for completing more than ten years of service under the Industrial Disputes Act.

JUDGMENT :

A.J. Desai, J.

1. By way of the present appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellants - original respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 have challenged oral judgement dated 22/04/2022 passed by learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.9897 of 2012, by which, while allowing the writ petition preferred by the original petitioner, learned Single Judge has held that the original petitioner is entitled to get benefits as per Government Resolution dated 17/10/1988 as he was reinstated in the year 1993 pursuant to the order passed by Labour Court in reference proceedings. Learned Single Judge further held that the appellants shall grant pensionary benefits including gratuity and other retiral benefits considering the continuous service of the original petitioner from 1993 to 2006.

While disposing of the petition, it was made clear that the original petitioner would not be entitled for arrears from 1993 to 2006 since he was retired from the services on 30/04/2006 on attaining the age of superannuation.

This appeal has been opposed by the respondent - original petitioner, who has filed caveat through learned advocate Mr. Mukesh Rathod.

2. Short facts, arising from the record, are as under:

That the respondent - original petitioner was working as driver with the appellant - Panchayat from 1982 and was driving jeep. However, petitioner’s service was terminated in the month of May,1984 without following due procedure prescribed under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and therefore, the original petitioner raised industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Junagadh being Reference (L.C.J.), No.317 of 1993, which was allowed by judgement and award dated 29/05/2000 and the appellant-Panchayat was directed to reinstate the original petitioner on his original post with continuity of service and with 50% backwages. The said award was challenged by the present appellants by way of filing Special Civil Application No.12880 of 2000 before this Court. The said writ petition was partly allowed vide order dated 26/07/2010 and the award as far as backwages are concerned, was quashed and set aside. The said order has become final.

Meanwhile, the original petitioner was retired on 30/04/2006. The grievance thereafter was raised that while reinstating the original petitioner, continuity of services were granted from 1993. However, the authority did not grant any pension on the ground that he had not completed 10 years of services and therefore, writ petition being Special Civil Application No.9897 of 2012 was preferred by the original petitioner. Learned Single Judge after considering the observations made by the Labour Court and confirmed in writ petition being Special Civil Application No.12880 of 2000, which was filed by the Panchayat, has upheld the continuity of service and allowed the petition. Hence, this appeal.

3. Ms. R.V. Acharya, learned advocate for the appellants has submitted that it is an undisputed fact that the original petitioner has not worked from 1984. However, vide judgement and award dated 29/05/2000, labour court has directed the appellant-panchayat to reinstate the original petitioner on its original post with continuity of service and with 50% backwages, which was challenged by the appellants before this Court. She would submit that he has completed 10 years services from 1993 to 2004 and thereafter only, he was regularised and therefore, this period is required to be excluded and therefore, this appeal is required to be allowed.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Mukesh Rathod, learned advocate for the respondent-original petitioner has opposed this appeal and supported the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge while allowing the petition. He would submit that learned Single Judge has rightly held that order of reinstatement of the labour court, which had given effect from 1993, is required to be kept in mind and therefore, learned Single Judge has committed no error. It is an undisputed fact that by judgeme