JUDGMENT :

HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal is filed by the appellants-original respondents under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 2nd February 2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 15845 of 2020 whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the petition.

2. Brief facts of the present appeal are in nutshell as under:

2.1 It is the case of the original petitioner that he was appointed as a daily wager with effect from 1st April 1974 in the office of original respondent No. 4. He was terminated from the service with effect from 1st April 1976. It is alleged that the petitioner was constrained to raise an industrial dispute and said dispute culminated in Reference (LCJ) No. 406 of 1999. The Labour Court, Godhra vide award dated 21st July 2009 set aside the termination of the petitioner and directed the respondents - authorities to reinstate the petitioner in service with 20% back wages. It is alleged that no direction with regard to continuity of service was recorded in the award and the respondent authorities challenged the said award by filing Special Civil Application No. 7983 of 2010 which came to be dismissed vide order dated 27th January 2014.

2.2 It is alleged that the petitioner reached the age of superannuation on 30th November 2012 since he was not paid the gratuity, he filed proceedings before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act and the said Authority by order dated 24th March 2014 directed the respondents to pay gratuity considering 22 years of service of the petitioner with 10% interest. Against the said order of the Controlling Authority, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority, which came to be allowed vide order dated 27th August 2014 and enhanced the amount on the basis of 24 years of service.

2.3 It is the case of the petitioner that he is entitled to the benefits arising from the Government Resolution dated 17th October 1988 and the Resolution dated 15th September 2014, however, the same has not been conferred upon the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has not rendered continuous service as he has not completed 240 days. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the action on the part of the respondent-authorities in not extending benefits of Government Resolution dated 17th October 1988 and retirement/pensionary benefits to the petitioner, the petitioner preferred the captioned petition which came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge.

2.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellants-authorities have preferred the present appeal.

3. Heard Mr.Jayneel Parikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellants herein and Mr.Dipak Dave, learned advocate for the respondent herein.

4. Mr. Parikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellants has submitted that the learned Single Judge has not considered the fact that the petitioner-workman has not worked with the respondent-authority for more than four years and not completed 240 days in a year and, therefore, he is not entitled to get any benefits as prayed for in the petition. It is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the petitioner had approached the Labour Court after a delay of eight years, which was not satisfactorily explained by the petitioner and which fact is also not considered by the learned Single Judge. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has also submitted that the direction with regard to the benefits enumerated in the order, the petitioner is not entitled for the same and, therefore, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge is erroneous and without there being any cogent and considerable reasons. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has also submitted that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the contentions and averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed by