Under the principle of judicial discipline, a coordinate bench must follow established views of other coordinate benches and the Division Bench in identical facts, particularly granting reinstatement with continuity of service (without back wages) when an employer fails to produce muster rolls to disprove continuous service.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Present petitions are filed by the employer as well as the employee under Articles 14, 21, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the impugned Award dated 13.05.2022 passed by the Labour Court, Godhra in Reference (T)No. 94 of 2014 with below mentioned relief/ in sca/3556/2023:-

“(A) A writ of certiorari and/or a writ in the nature of certiorari and / or any other appropriate writ, order of direction be issued to quash and set aside impugned award dated 13.05.2022 passed by Labour Court, Godhra, in Reference (T) No.94 of 2014 qua not allowing the Reference of the petitioner in full and further may be pleased to direct the respondents to grant reinstatement with continuity in service and backwages;

(B) Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service along with continuity:

(C) Any other and further relief or reliefs to which this Hon’ble Court deemed fit, in the interest of justice, may kindly be granted."

2.The same Award has been challenged by the state in SCA/23481/2022.

3.Heard Dipak R. Dave, learned Counsel for the employee and Ms.Roshni Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Employer state.

4. Mr.Dipak R. Dave, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in case of the similarly situated workmen,who have been terminated by the respondent employer, serving in the same irrigation department, this Court vide order dated 14.2.2020/20.1.2020 allowed Special Civil Application No22362 of 2019 and allied petitions and granted benefits to the concerned workmen. Mr. Dave, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the Labour Court has rightly observed that the respondent has not produced any documents and considering the Law laid down by the hon’ble Supreme court and in case of similar matters granted reinstatement without backwages. It is submitted that though continuity is not mentioned the same has to be considered as implied as per the settled law. It is submitted that in the similar cases of very department at very canal division in SCA/2205/2023, this court has while modifying award of lumpsum compensation granted relief of considering the service of the employee as continuous until he reached age of superannuation. In the present case the labour court has rightly passed the order of reinstatement however the labour court ought to have granted back wages.

5. Mr. Dave, learned Counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submissions, relied upon and referred to the decisions of the coordinate bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No.22362 of 2019 and allied petitions, Special Civil Application No. 4168 of 2022 with Special Civil Application No.4198 of 2022 and the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.389 of 2024 and urges that the impugned award passed by the Labour Court be modified in line of the observations made in the said decisions.

6. Mr. Dave, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge in favour of the concerned workman is further carried in Appeal by the State bef