Reinstatement with Continuity of Service Entitles Daily Wagers to Permanency Benefits Regardless of 240-Day Rule

Three employees—Manibhai Chhaganbhai, Lakshmanbhai Bhulabhai, and Bhikhabhai Bhulabhai—were appointed as daily wagers in the Road and Buildings Department in 1977 and 1979.

Their services were terminated in 1996, but the Labour Court subsequently ordered reinstatement with continuity of service.

After being reinstated in 2013, the workmen sought the benefit of permanency under Government Resolution (GR) dated 17.10.1988.

The Industrial Tribunal allowed their Reference (IT) No. 73 of 2018 on 06.01.2024, directing the State to treat them as permanent from their initial dates of appointment.

The State challenged this order via the present petition, arguing that the workers had not completed 240 days of service in the year preceding termination.

1. Whether daily wagers reinstated with continuity of service by a court order are entitled to the benefits of permanency under Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, notwithstanding the employer's claim regarding the 240-day work requirement.

2. Whether the benefits of the said Resolution should be reckoned from the date of initial appointment or after the completion of 10 years of service.

Government Resolution (GR) dated 17.10.1988, which governs the regularization and permanency of daily wagers based on years of service.

Jamnagar District Panchayat vs. Girdharbhai Muljibhai Eradiya (LPA No. 1205 of 2025): once "continuity of service" is awarded by a court and achieves finality, the employer cannot deny GR benefits by citing a lack of 240 days of actual work.

State of Gujarat vs. Ashok Laxmanbhai Parmar (LPA No. 1268 of 2017): an employer cannot benefit from its own illegal act of termination to deny service benefits.

The High Court rejected the State's contention regarding the 240-day requirement, noting that because the original termination was held illegal and reinstatement with "continuity of service" was granted and finalized, the entire period—including the period of forced absence—must be treated as continuous service.

The court reasoned that "continuity" applies either through actual service or notionally per the court's award.

Under the 17.10.1988 GR, permanency benefits typically accrue upon the completion of 10 years of service. Therefore, the Tribunal’s order was modified to align the permanency dates with the completion of 10 years from the adjusted initial appointment dates.

The State was directed to implement the order within 30 days.