Reinstatement with continuity of service must be granted once an order of termination is set aside.

The respondent-workman was employed as a daily wager by the petitioner-department from June 1, 1993, to December 31, 2008

He alleged his services were orally terminated on December 31, 2008, without notice, reasons, or pay in lieu of notice

The workman raised an industrial dispute in 2016.

The Labour Court, Jamnagar, via an award dated October 24, 2019, partly allowed the reference, granting reinstatement without continuity of service and without back wages

The State challenged this award, contending the workman voluntarily abandoned service and failed to provide evidence of his claim

Whether the Labour Court's award of reinstatement was illegal, arbitrary, or lacked jurisdictional evidence

Whether a workman is entitled to continuity of service upon a judicial finding that their termination was invalid

The Court applied the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, regarding the protection of workmen against arbitrary termination

It heavily relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Gurpreet Singh vs. State of Punjab and Ors. (2002) 9 SCC 492, which established the principle that once an order of termination is set aside and reinstatement is directed, continuity of service cannot be logically denied as it is a case of reinstatement rather than a fresh appointment

The High Court rejected the State's arguments regarding the workman’s alleged absence and lack of evidence, noting that the Labour Court had already considered the evidence produced on record

The Court observed that in a near-identical case involving a similarly situated workman (Special Civil Application No. 5191 of 2020), the High Court had not only upheld reinstatement but also granted continuity of service

The Court reasoned that under the doctrine established in Gurpreet Singh, the denial of continuity of service is unsustainable once termination is found to be wrongful

Since the State’s previous appeals and reviews in the parallel matter had been dismissed by the Division Bench, the Court found no merit in the State's current challenge

It held that the Labour Court’s findings were consistent with established law and prior judicial decisions involving the same department

Consequently, the order for reinstatement stands, and the challenge by the State Authorities was rejected with no order as to costs