Reinstatement inherently carries continuity of service for extending benefits under Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988.

The petitioners were engaged as daily-wage workers by the Forest Department in 1983.

During the pendency of a reference seeking regularization, their services were terminated in 1994.

They filed a complaint under the Industrial Disputes Act, and on 19.04.2010, the Labour Court directed their reinstatement.

Following unsuccessful recovery applications and writ petitions, this Court reserved liberty for the petitioners to seek benefits under Government Resolution (G.R.) dated 17.10.1988.

The petitioners sought to have the period between 1994 and 2010 treated as continuous service for the purpose of pay scales, pension, and other retiral benefits under the said G.R.

1. Whether an order of reinstatement automatically implies continuity of service for the purpose of calculating seniority and G.R. benefits

2. Whether daily-wage workers of the Forest Department are entitled to the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988

The Court primarily applied the principle that reinstatement inherently includes continuity of service unless specifically denied, as established in Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab and Nandkishore Shravan Ahirrao v. Kosan Industries (P) Ltd.

Regarding the applicability of G.R. dated 17.10.1988 to the Forest Department, the Court relied on the Supreme Court judgments in State of Gujarat v. PWD Employees Union (2013) and State of Gujarat v. PWD and Forest Employees Union (2019), which affirmed that benefits accrue to workers who complete 240 days of service in a year as per Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act.

The Court reasoned that once a termination is set aside and reinstatement is ordered, the worker must be treated as if the service was never interrupted.

The respondent’s contention that the 1988 G.R. did not initially apply to the Forest Department was rejected, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the Forest and Environment Department must extend these benefits to eligible daily wagers.

The Court clarified that while the period of termination (1994-2010) must be counted for continuity, the actual conferment of financial benefits is contingent upon the petitioners meeting the "240 days per year" threshold in their active service years.

The Court emphasized that Sunday and public holidays must be included when calculating these 240 days, following the precedent in Workmen of American Express International Banking Corp. v. Management of American Express.

The respondents are ordered to calculate the petitioners' eligibility for G.R. 17.10.1988 benefits based on the 240-day requirement and pay the arrears of salary and consequential retiral benefits by 31.07.2026. Failure to comply will attract 6% interest per annum and potential contempt proceedings.