Reinstatement absent express denial of continuity entitles workman to service continuity as a matter of law.

The petitioner was appointed as a daily wager on January 1, 1989. His services were terminated on February 20, 1995.

The Labour Court, vide award dated October 30, 2009, directed reinstatement without backwages, but the award was silent on the aspect of "continuity of service".

This award was confirmed by the High Court in SCA No. 4782 of 2010 on April 24, 2024, and the petitioner was reinstated on October 25, 2011.

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking the benefits of Government Resolution (G.R.) dated October 17, 1988, claiming that his service should be treated as continuous from his initial date of appointment.

1. Whether the benefit of "continuity of service" is inherent in an order of reinstatement when the award of the Labour Court is silent on the matter and does not expressly deny it.

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of Government Resolution dated October 17, 1988, by reckoning his service as continuous from the initial date of appointment.

The court applied the principle that reinstatement is not a fresh appointment; therefore, continuity of service is a direct consequence inherent in such relief unless specifically denied.

The Supreme Court precedent in Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab & Haryana (2002) 9 SCC 492 held that continuity cannot be denied once termination is set aside.

In Nandkishore Shravan Ahirrao v. Kosan Industries (P) Ltd. (2020) LLR 813, it was established that continuity follows as a matter of law if the award does not specifically deny it.

Division Bench rulings of the Gujarat High Court asserting that daily wagers reinstated with continuity are entitled to benefits under G.R. dated October 17, 1988.

The Court reasoned that since the Labour Court set aside the petitioner’s termination and the same was confirmed by a Co-ordinate Bench, the legal status of the petitioner is one of reinstatement rather than fresh employment.

Following the "common thread" of established jurisprudence, the Court held that the absence of the specific phrase "continuity of service" in a Labour Court award does not preclude such benefit if it was not "expressly denied".

The Court observed that forcing a workman to live without work due to illegal termination cannot be used by the State to deny statutory or policy benefits like those under G.R. dated October 17, 1988.

Consequently, the period between termination and reinstatement must be treated as continuous service to calculate the length of service required for benefits under the G.R.

The respondents were directed to extend the benefits of G.R. dated October 17, 1988, to the petitioner, treating his service as continuous from the initial date of appointment (January 1, 1989) for the purpose of computing such benefits, with compliance ordered within 12 weeks.