Continuity of service entitles daily wagers to regularisation benefits despite work gaps caused by illegal termination.

The petitioner was appointed as a daily wager in October 1987

His services were terminated on March 20, 1997

The petitioner challenged this termination before the Labour Court in Reference (T) No. 145 of 1998, which resulted in an award dated February 16, 2018, granting reinstatement with continuity of service

This award was subsequently confirmed by the High Court in Special Civil Application No. 14528 of 2018

Following the litigation, the State issued an Office Order on February 7, 2026, granting the petitioner benefits under Government Resolution (GR) dated October 17, 1988, but only effective from April 1, 2008

The State argued that the petitioner was ineligible for earlier benefits because he had not completed 240 days of actual service in the year prior to his 1997 termination

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking the grant of these benefits from 1997, upon the completion of 10 years of service

1. Whether a workman who has been reinstated with continuity of service following an illegal termination is entitled to the benefits of Government Resolution dated October 17, 1988, from the date of initial appointment, notwithstanding the lack of actual 240 days of work during the period of termination

The court primarily applied the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, which provides for the regularization and pay-scale benefits of daily wagers based on their length of service

Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, regarding the definition of continuous service

The court relied on the Division Bench precedents of State of Gujarat v. Ashok Laxmanbhai Parmar (2018 SCC OnLine Guj 2344) and Jamnagar District Panchayat v. Girdharbhai Muljibhai Eradiya (LPA No. 1205 of 2025), which established that once "continuity of service" is granted by a court, the workman is entitled to all benefits of GR dated 17.10.1988 as if the illegal termination had not occurred

Furthermore, it noted the Supreme Court decisions in Vinod Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India (2024) 9 SCC 327 and Jaggo v. Union of India (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826)

The court reasoned that the Labour Court had categorically found the petitioner had rendered continuous service under Section 25B of the I.D. Act

Under established law, when a workman is reinstated with continuity of service, they must be treated as having been in constant employment for the purpose of calculating benefits under the GR dated 17.10.1988

The court rejected the State's contention that the petitioner failed the "240-day" requirement, noting that the petitioner was "forced to live without work because of his illegal termination" and the State cannot benefit from its own illegal actions

Since the petitioner’s service began in October 1987, the 10-year threshold for permanency benefits under the GR was reached in October 1997

Consequently, the continuity of service award bridges the gap created by the illegal termination, entitling the petitioner to service seniority and related pay benefits from his original appointment date

The court held that the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of GR dated 17.10.1988 notionally from October 1987 to March 20, 1997, and must be placed in the regular pay scale effective October 1997

The respondents were directed to pay 10% wages (per the Labour Court award) from the date of termination until February 16, 2018, and the actual difference in wages from February 16, 2018, onwards

All arrears must be paid by April 30, 2026, failing which a 6% interest rate shall apply from May 1, 2026, until realization