Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—These three special appeals are directed against a common judgment dated 08.09.2005 delivered by learned Single Judge deciding two writ petitions filed by workman Bangali Mal Sharma.

2. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Dholpur (for short, 'the KUMS') has preferred first two special appeals against the judgment passed in both the writ petitions No.4321/97 and 637/2004, whereas Bangali Mal Sharma, dissatisfied with certain part of the judgment in his Writ Petition No.4321/1997, has also preferred special appeal claiming certain more benefits. They were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

3. Factual matrix of the case is that Bangali Mal Sharma (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the writ petitioner') was appointed as L.D.C. in the KUMS, Dholpur, on 11.05.1967; he was made permanent on 01.11.1968; his services were terminated on 07.10.1972. An industrial dispute was raised at his instance and a reference with regard thereto was made to learned Labour Court, Jaipur for adjudication. The learned Labour Court, vide its award dated 20.09.1980, held that termination of the employee/writ petitioner was illegal and directed his reinstatement with 50% back wages. The KUMS challenged the award by filing Writ Petition No.1081/1981, which was dismissed by learned Single Judge on 23.03.1995. It then filed Special Appeal No.46/95 before Division Bench of this Court, which too was rejected by judgment dated 16.01.1996. No further challenge was made to judgment of the Division Bench and thus the award attained finality. Since during pendency of the writ petition as also special appeal, interim order was operating whereby implementation of the award was stayed, the workman/writ petitioner was reinstated in service only thereafter on 13.05.1996. He was, however, during pendency of the writ petition, paid a sum of Rs.3000/- as per the interim order passed by this Court and also a sum of Rs.250/- per month as per the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. The employee/writ petitioner filed the first writ petition with the prayer that the respondent be directed to give him all the consequential benefits of the intervening period including promotions by convening review DPC. In the meantime, on attaining the age of superannuation when Bangali Mal Sharma retired, he filed second writ petition No.637/2004 claiming the relief that he should be paid all retiral benefits on the basis of relief claimed in the first writ petition. The learned Single Judge partly allowed the writ petition granting some of the relief prayed for and directed the respondent to consider the case of the writ petitioner treating him to be continuous in service and grant him selection scales on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service counting the period from the date of his initial appointment, and fix his pay under the pay scales revised from time to time on notional basis and on that basis compute his pension and other retiral benefits and pay the same to him along with arrears thereof and interest at the rate of 9% per annum thereon and also award costs of Rs.5000/-.

4. Shri Inderjeet Singh, learned counsel appearing for employer-KUMS, has argued that the learned Labour Court, in its award dated 20.09.1980, while declaring termination of the said employee illegal, merely directed his reinstatement with 25% back wages but without any specific direction as to his continuity in service or about the consequential benefits. Unless that relief was specifically granted, such benefits cannot be granted because the award has otherwise also now become final, the workman having not challenged the same. It was argued that the pension scheme in the KUMS was introduced in 1976 at the time when the said employee was not in service and that he was reinstated only in the year 1996, but the fact is that he never opted for pension. He cannot be, therefore, now allowed to avail pensionary benefits. It was argued that the learned Si