JUDGMENT :

ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Agneya Mankad, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of rule for the respondents.

2. By the present writ petition, the petitioners are praying for the following reliefs:-

“8(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or a writ of certiorari and/or a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or a writ in the nature of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to (i) hold and declare that action on part of the respondents in not reinstating the petitioners in service as per the awards of the Labour Court and not implementing the awards of the Labour Court in its true letter and spirit, as illegal, unjust, unbecoming of government authorities and may be pleased to direct the respondents to immediately implement the said awards dated 18.12.2019 in its true letter and spirit.

(ii) hold and declare that the petitioners are entitled to the benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 after completion of 10 years of service i.e. 1990 in case of petitioner No.1 and 2001 in case of petitioner No.2, and further may be pleased to direct the respondents to extend the benefits of permanent employee including regular pay-scale to the petitioners;

(iii) direct the respondents to pay regular pay and salary to the petitioners after awards dated 18.12.2019 of the Labour Court;

(iv) hold and declare that action on part of the respondents in not reinstating the petitioners in service as per the awards of the Labour Court and not implementing the awards of the Labour Court in its true letter and spirit, as illegal, unjust, unbecoming of government authorities and may be pleased to direct the respondents to immediately implement the said awards dated 18.12.2019 in its true letter and spirit;

(B) Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioners in service by extending benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988;

(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;

3. The facts giving rise to the present petition is that the petitioners, who entered service as daily-wage irrigation patrolling labourers under the respondent authorities on 15.02.1980 and 15.03.1991 respectively, were orally terminated from service on 20.08.1997 after rendering continuous and uninterrupted service exceeding 240 days each year, allegedly with the intent to deprive them of benefits under the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. Aggrieved the petitioners raised an industrial dispute by Reference (T) LC Nos. 32–33 of 2000, wherein the Labour Court, Godhra, by identical awards dated 18.12.2019, held the termination illegal as being in violation of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and amounting to unfair labour practice, and accordingly directed reinstatement with continuity of service along with 10% back wages. However, despite such directions and after issuance of notice dated 04.02.2020 through their union, the respondents failed to reinstate the petitioners or grant any consequential benefits, including those under the aforesaid Government Resolution, while extending such benefits to similarly situated employees.

4. Mr. Dipak R. Dave, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the inaction of the respondents in not complying with the Labour Court awards dated 18.12.2019 and in not extending the benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 is wholly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to settled law, as despite the awards attaining finality, the respondents have neither reinstated the petitioners nor granted consequential benefits, thereby acting in violation of statutory provisions and principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that the petitioners, having been granted continuity of service, are deemed to be in