Gujarat HC Counts Reinstated Driver’s 11-Year Gap After Illegal Termination As Service For 1988 Pay Benefits

In brief

The question

1. Whether reinstatement following the setting aside of termination, where the Labour Court’s award did not expressly deny continuity of service, entitled the petitioner to continuity for the period between termination and reinstatement.

The court held

The petition was allowed.

It also directed

The respondents were directed to grant the petitioner the consequential benefits under the Government Resolution dated 17 October 1988 with effect from 1 March 2001 and, as he remained in service, to pay regular salary with all service benefits.

Arrears were to be paid preferably within two months; failing that, they would carry interest at 6% from the expiry of two months until realization.

Rule was made absolute to that extent.

01Facts

The petitioner was appointed as a Driver on 1 March 1996 and terminated on 30 April 2012.

¶ 3.1

The Labour Court set aside the termination and ordered reinstatement with 30% back wages; the back-wages direction was later set aside, while reinstatement was upheld.

¶ 7

The petitioner was reinstated on 17 March 2023.

¶ 3.1 · ¶ 7

He sought benefits under the Government Resolution dated 17 October 1988, including fixed pay after five years and regular pay scale after ten years.

¶ 1

The respondents opposed the claim on the ground that he had not completed 240 days and his service was not continuous.

¶ 3.2, 5

02Issues

i.1. Whether reinstatement following the setting aside of termination, where the Labour Court’s award did not expressly deny continuity of service, entitled the petitioner to continuity for the period between termination and reinstatement.

¶ 7–9

ii.2. Whether the petitioner could be denied benefits under the Government Resolution dated 17 October 1988 on the ground that he had not worked 240 days or rendered continuous service.

¶ 10–13

iii.3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefits claimed from 1 March 2001, including fixed pay after five years and regular pay scale after ten years.

¶ 1, 13–14

03Law Applied

The Court relied on Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab, (2002) 9 SCC 492, and Nandkishore Shravan Ahirrao v. Kosan Industries (P) Ltd., which establish that, absent an express denial, continuity of service ordinarily follows an order of reinstatement after termination is set aside.

¶ 8–9

It applied the Division Bench’s ruling in LPA No. 1268 of 2017 that a workman reinstated with continuity cannot be denied benefits under the Government Resolution dated 17 October 1988 merely because he did not work 240 days during the period he was kept out of service by an illegal termination.

¶ 10

It also relied on State of Gujarat v. PWD and Forest Employees Union, 2019 (3) SCALE 642, concerning the benefits under the Resolution for daily wagers completing five, ten and fifteen years of service.

¶ 13

04Reasoning

The petitioner’s termination had been set aside and reinstatement ordered; the Labour Court had not expressly denied continuity of service. Applying the cited Supreme Court decisions, the Court held that continuity followed from reinstatement and treated the period from termination until reinstatement as continuous service.

¶ 7–9

Since the petitioner had been kept out of work because of the termination, the respondents could not rely on the resulting non-completion of 240 days to deny benefits under the 1988 Resolution.

¶ 10–11

The Court therefore directed that the applicable Resolution benefits be granted, including placement in fixed pay after five years and in the regular pay scale after ten years.

¶ 13