The High Court of Gujarat allowed a Special Civil Application filed by seven petitioners who were reinstated by the Labour Court after termination of their services as laborers. The Labour Court awards were silent on continuity of service, leading the respondents to deny continuity benefits and benefits under Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. The Court held that when reinstatement is granted without specifically denying continuity, continuity of service is implied. Relying on Supreme Court precedent and a binding coordinate bench decision, the Court directed the respondents to grant continuity of service and all consequential benefits including pay fixation under 6th and 7th Pay Commissions, merger of 50% DA, and benefits under Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. The Court rejected the respondents' argument that facts were different, finding the case squarely covered by precedent.
Labour & Service Law-- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-- Petitioners were working as labourer with respondent no.2-- Working period was between 1985 to 1994-- Termination of Services-- Challenged before labour court-- Reinstatement awarded to each petitioners However no order as to continuity of services passed by labour court- No benefit of Government Resolution 17.10.1988 given to the petitioners - Dissatisfaction and aggrieved-- Challenged by petitioners before High court-- Case of Bhagwanbhai Motibhai Malivad referred and relied upon-- Award silent on the aspect of continuity of service-- Judgment and order passed in the case of Bhagwanbhai Motibhai Malivad confirmed by Division bench in Letters Patent Appeal also-- Once reinstatement is awarded by labour court, the continuity of service would follow as a matter of course-- Direction to respondent no.2 to grant all benefits flowing from G.R dated. 17.10.1988 to the petitioners-- Observations-- Petition allowed
Para-- 8, 9, 10
The Court allowed the petition, directing the respondents to grant continuity of service to the petitioners from their initial dates of appointment until reinstatement, and to grant all consequential benefits including pay fixation under 6th and 7th Pay Commissions, merger of 50% DA, and benefits under Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, to be completed within three months
Citation: 2026 LawText (GUJ) (01) 7
Case Number: R/Special Civil Application No. 20840 of 2022
Date of Decision: 2026-01-06
Case Title: Whether in a Labour Court award, if the award is silent with regard to continuity of service and such continuity is not specifically denied, the same can be construed as continuity of service or not
Before Judge: Nirzar S. Desai J.
Equivalent Citations: 2026:GUJHC:729
Advocate(s): Mr Yogen N Pandya for the Petitioners, Mr Aditya Pathak Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondents
Appellant: Mansukhbhai Gandubhai Chabhadiya & Ors.
Respondent: State of Gujarat & Anr.
Nature of Litigation: Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking writ of mandamus for service benefits
Remedy Sought: Petitioners sought direction to respondents to grant continuity of service benefits, pay fixation under 6th and 7th Pay Commissions, merger of 50% DA, and benefits under Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988
Filing Reason: The petitioners were reinstated by Labour Court but denied continuity of service benefits because the award was silent on continuity, leading to denial of Government Resolution benefits
Previous Decisions: Labour Court granted reinstatement to petitioners but awards were silent on continuity of service -- Respondents reinstated petitioners in 2019 but denied continuity benefits -- Coordinate bench in Bhagwanbhai Motibhai Malivad v. State of Gujarat allowed similar petition, confirmed by Division Bench
Issues: Whether continuity of service is implied when Labour Court awards reinstatement without specifically denying continuity Whether petitioners are entitled to benefits under Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 based on continuity of service
Submissions/Arguments: Petitioners' counsel argued that denial of continuity benefits was contrary to settled law and cited Bhagwanbhai Motibhai Malivad case which was confirmed by Division Bench -- Respondents' counsel opposed but could not distinguish facts from precedent case, though argued facts were different -- Petitioners' counsel in rejoinder submitted no evidence showed facts were different
Ratio Decidendi: When a Labour Court awards reinstatement without specifically denying continuity of service, continuity is implied as reinstatement inherently includes continuity unless explicitly denied -- Benefits flowing from continuity of service, including those under Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, must be granted -- Judicial precedent on identical issues is binding and applicable to similar cases
Judgment Excerpts: "The issue in question is whether in a Labour Court award, if the award is silent with regard to continuity of service and such continuity is not specifically denied, the same can be construed as continuity of service or not" -- Para 8 "Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on examining the materials on record, we fail to understand how the continuity of service could be denied once the plaintiff is directed to be reinstated in service on setting aside the order of termination" -- Para 8 (quoting Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh case) "The aforesaid decision would be squarely applicable, and in view of the above settled proposition of law, the present petition is also required to be allowed in terms of the prayers made in the petition" -- Para 5
Procedural History: Petitioners were terminated between 1985 and 1994 -- They filed references before Labour Court at Rajkot -- Labour Court granted reinstatement but awards were silent on continuity -- Respondents reinstated petitioners in 2019 but denied continuity benefits -- Petitioners filed Special Civil Application No. 20840 of 2022 in High Court -- Matter taken up for final hearing with consent -- Rule issued and waived -- Petition heard and allowed
