IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 applies to extend benefits to those working on a daily wage basis, and continuity of service is crucial in determining entitlement to such benefits.

JUDGMENT :

PRANAV TRIVEDI, J.

The present Letters Patent Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent is filed by the original respondents assailing the correctness of the judgment and order dated 06.03.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 21570 of 2017.

2. The prayer made in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge by the original petitioners–present respondents was to give appropriate directions to grant benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the petitioners on completion of 20 years of service and further direct to grant arrears arising out of it with 8% interest thereon.

3. The learned Single Judge held that once the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the termination of the petitioners were ineffective and since it was in violation of provisions of the Industrial Tribunal Act, reinstatement was directed. Continuity would therefore, naturally follow. It was further directed that the continuity is to be read into the awards passed by the Labour Court, the entire period of service right from the date of reinstatement has to be treated as continuous and uninterrupted.

3.1. It was further observed by the learned Single Judge that the petitioners were beneficiaries of the award of the labour court and implicitly the benefit of continuity of service has to be read in such awards. Their past services have to be treated as services for the purposes of granting them the benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. It is this direction which is challenged in this present appeal.

4. The background of facts which has led to filing of the writ petition are that the original petitioners were working in the respondents from the year 1983. The services of the original petitioners were terminated pursuant to which, the petitioners raised an industrial dispute, which came to be numbered as Reference (LCB) Nos. 219 to 266 of 1989. On 17.01.2000, the labour court passed an award directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioners on their original post with back wages. This award came to be challenged before this Court by preferring writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 6017 of 2000. By way of judgment and order dated 24.08.2005, this Court modified the award and confirmed the reinstatement and set aside the portion of back-wages.

4.1. The said judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge is not challenged any further and has attained finality. The said direction given by the learned Single Judge in writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 6017 of 2000 is as under,

“6. In the result, the petition qua respondent nos. 3, 4 and 6 is partly allowed. The impugned award dated 17th January, 2000 passed by the Labour Court, Bhavnagar in Reference [L.C.B.] No. 219 to 226 of 1989, qua backwages is quashed and set aside and rest of the award is confirmed. The petitioner shall reinstate respondent nos. 3, 4 and 6 in service within one month from the date of receipt of this Court and shall grant all the benefits accordingly within a period of three months thereafter. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.”

4.2. Pursuant to the judgment and order dated 24.08.2005, the original petitioners were reinstated in service, but continuity was not granted and they were paid minimum wages. On this factual aspect, the original petitioners preferred writ petition on the ground that they have completed more than 25 years of service and were entitled for the benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, which benefit was denied to them by the respondents. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions, against which, the present appeal is preferred.

5. We have heard learned advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw for the appellants and learned advocate Mr. M.T Mishra for the respondents.

6. It has been contended by learned advocate Mr. Munshaw that the respondents – original petitioners were offered work on daily basis with effect from 21.05.19