Oral Judgment

1. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Ms. R.R.Gautam for learned advocate Mr. H.S.Munshaw for respondent Nos.2, 3 & 4 as also learned AGP Ms. Forum J. Shah for respondent No.1, waive service of notice of rule for respective respondents.

2. With the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the present matter is taken up for hearing.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Nilesh Shah for the petitioner, learned advocate Ms. R.R.Gautam for learned advocate Mr. H.S.Munshaw for respondent Nos.2, 3 & 4 as also learned AGP Ms. Forum J. Shah for respondent No.1, at length.

4. The present writ petition is filed under Articles 14, 16 and 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs;

          "(A) to issue writ of certiorari and/or any other writ or writs or orders or directions.

          (B) to direct the Respondents to give the benefits or Resolution dt.17-10-88, Ann-G to the Petitioner with effect from 01-01-90 notionally up to 30-05-06 and further be pleased to direct the Respondents to give difference of salary from 01-06-06 onwards till its actual implementation.

          (C) during the pendency of this petition by way of interim relief to direct the Respondents to consider the notice of the Petitioner, Annexure-E for giving benefit of Resolution dt.17-10-88, Annexure-G from 01-01-90.

          (D) to grant any other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit in the interest of justice.

          (E) to allow this petition with costs."

5. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Shah appearing for the petitioner would state that issue germane in the matter is squarely covered by the decision dated 31.01.2022 of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in Special Civil Application No.131 of 2019 (in the case of Thakarshibhai amarshibhai Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors.) with Special Civil Application No.1403 of 2019, confirmed by the Division Bench vide its judgment and order dated 02.05.2025 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.226 of 2022 and others allied matters, whereby, similarly situated persons like the petitioner, given benefits, as prayed in this present petition.

6. Since the aforesaid facts and the judgments / orders passed by the Coordinate Bench, confirmed by the Division Bench, are not disputed by the learned advocates appearing for the respondents, it needs not to discuss in detail the facts, when this Court also inclines to pass similar such judgment / order in this matter, but only few facts require to be observed, which are as follows;

          6.1. The original petitioner - deceased Panchabhai (hereinafter referred to as 'original petitioner') was appointed as daily wager with respondent No.4 in the year 1985, whose services were terminated abruptly by respondent No.4 along with others on 27.12.1990. So, original petitioner along with others raised Industrial Dispute being Reference Case (LCS) No.73 of 1994, which came to be decided by the Labour Court, Surendranagar in favour of original petitioner, vide its judgment and award dated 30.05.2006, whereby original petitioner and other similarly situated have been ordered to reinstate them in their respective services.

          6.2. The aforesaid judgment and award passed by the Labour Court came to be challenged by the respondents concerned before this Court by way of Special Civil Application Nos.16424 of 2007 and 30390 of 2007. It appears from the record that such judgment / award is confirmed up to Division Bench of this Court, having dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 2012 of 2009 & 2018 of 2009, vide its judgment and order dated 22.12.2009.

          6.3. The original petitioner having not granted the benefits as per the aforesaid judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, inasmuch as, not granted wages from the date of award till his actual reinstatement, then preferred a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.920 of 2011, which also came to be allowed in favour of the original petitioner and ors., by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 23.03.2011, in the said petition.

          6.4. It further appears that previous service rendered by the original petitioner was not taken into account when reinstated in the service, by way of impugned communication dated 21.04.2015, original petitioner along with others treated to have been in service only from 16.03.2010 i.e. when actually reinstated. This impugned decision/action of respondents challenged by the respective parties along with the original petitioner herein, as according to them, the same not passed in consonance with Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988.

          6.5. As observed hereinabove, in case of other employees who also reinstated in the service as per the aforesaid judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, their respective writ petitions being Special Civil Application No.131 of 2019 and Special Civil Application No.1403 of 2019, came to be allowed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 31.01.2022 and so also, confirmed by the Division Bench while dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal No.226 of 2022 & Letters Patent Appeal No.546 of 2022 and others allied matters respectively, vide its judgment and order dated 02.05.2025.

          6.6. Thus, in view of the aforesaid judgments / orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench, confirmed by the Division Bench, all the benefits emanating from G.R. dated 17.10.1988 given to other similarly situated persons, requires to be given to original petitioner as well.

7. At this stage, learned advocate Mr. Shah pointed out that other similar such orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench / Division Bench of this Court and also confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, which are as follows;

          i. Special Civil Application No.18154 of 2015, decision dated 22/12/2016, confirmed in Letters Patent Appeal No.485 of 2017 dated 20/07/2021, also confirmed in SLP (C) No.2116 of 2022, dismissing the SLP vide order dated 22.01.2024;

          ii. Special Civil Application Nos.20894 of 2017 & 21570 of 2017, decided on 06.03.2020, confirmed in Letters Patent Appeal No.663 of 2020 in Special Civil Application No.20894 of 2017 vide order dated 06.02.2024 and confirmed on 13.02.2024 in Letters Patent Appeal No.722 of 2020 in Special Civil Application No.21570 of 2017;

          iii. Gurpreet Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. reported in (2002) 9 SCC 492;

          iv. Nandkishore Shravan Ahirrao Vs. Kosan Industries (P) Ltd., rendered in Civil Appeal Nos.201-202 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.30469-30470 of 2015), reported in AIR 2020 SC 1776.

8. By placing reliance upon the aforesaid judgments / orders passed by this Court, confirmed up to the Hon'ble Apex Court and other two decisions in the case of Gurpreet Singh (supra) and Nandkishore Shravan Ahirrao (supra), Mr. Shah would respectfully submit that as per the settled legal position of law, when Labour Court granted relief of reinstating the applicant / original petitioner, even if not specifically observed about the continuity of her service, it is deemed to have been granted, thus, it cannot be ignored by employer when reinstated original petitioner.

          8.1. It is respectfully submitted that even though Labour Court has not in clear terms observed in its judgment / award that reinstatement of original petitioner with continuity of service, as per the aforesaid pronouncement of law by highest Court of India, it requires to be considered by the respondents, inasmuch as, when there is an award of reinstatement by the Labour Court, such award has to be construed to be an award granting continuity of service unless otherwise expressly denied.

9. Per contra, learned advocate Ms. R.R.Gautam for learned advocate Mr. H.S.Munshaw for respondent Nos.2, 3 & 4 so also learned Asst. Government Pleader Ms. Forum J. Shah for respondent Nos.1, though placed reliance upon the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 12.07.2016 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.492 of 2016 in R/ Special Civil Application No.20577 of 2015, are unable to countenance the submissions made by the learned advocate Mr. Shah for the original petitioner.

10. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and after going through all the aforementioned cited judgments / orders passed by this Court and so also, by Hon'ble Apex Court, it is clear like a day that whenever there is an award passed by the Labour Court, whereby services of labourer concerned is ordered to be reinstated without expressing anything about his/her continuity of service, unless it is expressly denied by Labour Court, continuity of service is deemed to have been granted in such award. Thus, in view of aforesaid pronouncement of law, respondents require to consider continuity of service of original petitioner herein though not expressed observed by Labour Court in its aforesaid award, thereby requires to grant benefits to the original petitioner / applicant concerned.

11. It is not in dispute that case of the original petitioner is so similar and governed by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Thakarshibhai Amarshibhai Chauhan (supra), which came to be confirmed by the Division Bench while dismissing the R/Letters Patent Appeal No.226 of 2022 and allied matters, on 02.05.2025, thus, there is no reason to take departure from such orders / judgments which otherwise binding to this Court.

12. In view of the foregoing observations and reasons, the present writ petition requires to be allowed, which is hereby allowed.

          12.1. Consequently, the impugned communication dated 21.04.2015 passed by respondent No.4 to the extent of not granting benefits to petitioner of G.R. dated 17.10.1988 from 1.1.1990 and to the extent of stating his appointment w.e.f. from dated 16.03.2010 is hereby quashed and set aside by holding that the same is arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and so also passed contrary to law laid down by this Court / Hon'ble Apex Court as aforesaid.

          12.2. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to give all the consequential benefits of G.R. dated 17.10.1988 to the original petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.1990 notionally up to 30.05.2006 and further directed to give difference of salary from 01.06.2006 to 12.03.2020.

          12.3. It is reported to this Court that original petitioner having expired on 12.03.2020, respondents are directed to grant retirement benefits like gratuity and leave encashment to the petitioners on the basis of considering 32 years of continuous service of the original petitioner including family pension starting from 13.03.2020.

          12.4. Let respondents calculate and pay all these aforesaid benefits including its arrears to legal heirs of original petitioner on or before 31 st January, 2026, failing which, petitioner herein is entitled to receive such arrears amount with 9% interest from 01st February, 2026 till its realization. It is also open for petitioner to initiate contempt proceeding against erring officials of respondents for not complying with aforesaid direction in time

          12.5. In view of the foregoing conclusion, the present writ petition is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute. At present no costs.