Reinstatement award implies deemed continuity of service unless expressly denied by the court.

The petitioner was appointed as a daily wager with the respondent authority in 1978.

His services were abruptly terminated on June 1, 1992

The petitioner raised an industrial dispute (Reference Case (LCS) No. 112 of 1995), and the Labour Court, Surendranagar, vide award dated November 15, 2006, ordered his reinstatement

This award was upheld by the High Court in 2007 and subsequently by the Supreme Court in 2008

Upon reinstatement, the respondent issued a communication dated September 20, 2012, treating the petitioner’s service as commencing only from the date of the award (November 15, 2006), thereby ignoring his prior service from 1978 and denying him benefits under Government Resolution (G.R.) dated October 17, 1988

The petitioner sought to quash this communication and claim benefits from October 1, 1988, including pension and gratuity based on 34 years of service

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of the Government Resolution dated October 17, 1988, from the original date of eligibility (October 1, 1988) instead of the date of the Labour Court award

2. Whether an award of reinstatement by a Labour Court implies "continuity of service" if the award is silent on the matter and does not expressly deny it

The court primarily relied on Articles 14, 16, and 226 of the Constitution of India regarding arbitrary state action and the right to equality

It applied the provisions of the Government Resolution dated October 17, 1988, which regulates the services and benefits of daily wagers

Furthermore, the court relied on the legal principle established in Nandkishore Shravan Ahirrao v. Kosan Industries (P) Ltd. (AIR 2020 SC 1776) and Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab (2002) 9 SCC 492, which holds that an award of reinstatement must be construed as granting continuity of service unless specifically denied by the Labour Court

The court observed that the petitioner’s situation was identical to the case of Galalben Laxmanbhai Makwana v. Joint Secretary, where similarly situated employees were granted benefits under the 1988 G.R.

The Court rejected the respondent's action of treating the petitioner as a fresh appointee from 2006, noting that the Labour Court award of reinstatement—having attained finality after Supreme Court dismissal—necessarily implies continuity of service

The Court reasoned that unless the Labour Court explicitly denies continuity while ordering reinstatement, the employer cannot unilaterally disregard prior service

Consequently, the period from the petitioner’s initial appointment must be counted toward calculating the 34 years of continuous service required for pensionary benefits

The court held that the denial of past service was arbitrary and violative of Article 14

The respondents were directed to: (i) grant the benefits of G.R. dated October 17, 1988, from October 1, 1988, notionally up to November 15, 2006; (ii) pay the difference in salary from November 16, 2006, to May 31, 2013

(iii) provide retirement benefits, including gratuity and leave encashment, based on 34 years of continuous service, with pension starting from June 1, 2013

Payments must be cleared by July 31, 2026, failing which a 9% annual interest rate applies