The main legal point established is that continuity of service should be granted based on an award of reinstatement by the Labour Court unless expressly denied.

ORDER :

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Kurven Desai, learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. The prayer in the petition is that the petitioners be held to be entitled to benefits of resolution dated 17.10.1988 from the initial date of appointment i.e. 27.06.1981 and 01.05.1980. By the impugned order, the benefits have been restricted to the date on which the petitioners no. 1 and 2 complete five years of service as on 31.05.2019 and 30.04.2018 respectively.

3. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that though the awards of the Labour Court in case of both of the petitioners on 04.08.2000 did not expressly mention the word ‘continuity of service’ by discounting the initial date of appointment, the respondents have infact restricted the benefits of the resolution dated 17.10.1988. He would submit that it is also apparent that the Labour Court awards were under challenge in the respective petitions and this court by order dated 12.07.2010 dismissed the petitions of the State in light of the decision rendered by this court in Special Civil Application No. 10833 of 2021, which has considered the decision of Nandkishore Shravan Ahirrao v. Kosan Industries (P) Ltd. [AIR 2020 SC 1776] and Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab and Haryana [(2002) 9 SCC 492]. He would also rely on the decision dated 27.01.2022 passed by this court in Special Civil Application No. 66 of 2019 wherein also this court relying on the abovementioned decision granted the benefits to the petitioners therein as prayed for in this petition.

4. The issue involved in this petition has been time and again addressed by this court vide various orders passed in petitions taking up such issues. This court in Special Civil Application No. 66 of 2019 on 27.01.2022 has considered the decisions rendered in the case of Nandkishore Shravan Ahirrao (supra) and Gurpreet Singh (supra). This court while granting benefits of resolution dated 17.10.1988 has observed as under in the said petition:

“7. Having heard learned advocates for the parties, it is borne out that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of this court rendered in Special Civil Application No. 66 of 2019 dated 27.01.2022 wherein this court therein has considered the decisions rendered in the case of Nandkishore Shravan Ahirrao v. Kosan Industries (P) Ltd. [AIR 2020 SC 1776] and Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab and Haryana [(2002) 9 SCC 492].

This court while granting benefits of resolution dated 17.10.1988 has observed as under in the said petition:

“12. Taking into consideration all the decisions referred to herein above, the common thread has been decided by this Court is that when there is an award of reinstatement by the Labour Court, the award has to be construed to be an award granting continuity of service unless otherwise expressly denied. That is the position of law as held by the Supreme Court in case of Nandkishore Shravan Ahirrao (supra) referred to by the Division Bench in case of Heirs of Decd. Dhirubhai Lavabhai Suvagiya (supra).

13. Even the decision of this Court in case of Hamirbhai Meghabhai Gohil (supra) it has been extensively reproduced above would indicate that based on an award of the Labour Court unless there is an express denial of continuity of service once the termination is set aside, continuity of service has to be read into the order of Labour Court.”

8. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to confer the benefits flowing from the resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the petitioner as per the as per the 5th, 6th and 7th Pay Commission with other consequential benefits and also to direct the respondents to open GPF account of the petitioner with retrospective effect treating the entire period of service from the initial date of appointment as continuous. Necessary orders shall be passed in terms of the directions issued by this Court within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of