Reinstatement entails continuity of service unless the Labour Court expressly denies it.

The appellant-workman was employed as a daily-wager with the State from 7 February 2010 until his alleged oral termination on 1 October 2014.

He raised Reference (T) No. 84 of 2019 before the Labour Court. By award dated 12 January 2024, the Labour Court held the termination illegal and directed reinstatement without consequential benefits; it did not expressly address continuity of service.

By order dated 4 December 2025, the learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the finding concerning illegal termination but substituted reinstatement with lump-sum compensation of ₹3,00,000.

The workman preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal, contending that he was alive, willing to rejoin service, and that the precedent relied upon by the Single Judge concerned deceased workmen.

Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in substituting the Labour Court’s order of reinstatement with lump-sum compensation of ₹3,00,000?

Whether the workman was entitled to continuity of service when the Labour Court had directed reinstatement but had not expressly granted or denied continuity of service?

Whether the workman could claim consequential benefits in the Letters Patent Appeal despite not challenging the Labour Court’s award on that aspect?

Where reinstatement is awarded, continuity of service ordinarily follows as a matter of law unless the Labour Court specifically denies it.

Relying on Nandkishore Shravan Ahirrao v. Kosan Industries (P) Ltd., (2020) AIR SC 1776, the Court held that an award of reinstatement, absent an express denial of continuity, entails continuity of service.

The Court also distinguished the Division Bench decision in Letters Patent Appeal No. 908 of 2023 dated 18 April 2024, observing that it involved workmen who were no longer alive and therefore did not govern a case where the workman was alive and willing to resume employment.

A party that has not challenged a particular part of the Labour Court’s award cannot seek consequential benefits while challenging only the subsequent modification made by the Single Judge.

The Division Bench found that the Single Judge had not concluded that the Labour Court’s direction of reinstatement was legally erroneous; the modification to compensation was based principally on the precedent concerning deceased workmen.

Since the appellant was alive and willing to rejoin service, the factual basis for substituting reinstatement with compensation was absent.

Applying Nandkishore Shravan Ahirrao, it held that the Labour Court’s failure to expressly deny continuity of service meant that continuity followed from the reinstatement order.

However, because the appellant had not challenged the Labour Court’s failure to award consequential benefits, the Court declined to grant such benefits.

The portion of the Single Judge’s order awarding ₹3,00,000 as lump-sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement was set aside.

The Labour Court’s direction for reinstatement without consequential benefits was confirmed.

The respondents were directed to comply within eight weeks from receipt of the order.

The workman was additionally held entitled to continuity of service from the date of termination until reinstatement.

The connected Civil Application for stay was disposed of.