JUDGMENT : 1. By way of the present petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, by challenging an order dated 15.09.2015 passed by the learned Labour Court, Mehsana in recovery proceedings, has prayed as under : "[A] Be pleased to issue writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 15.09.2015 passed by the Labour Court, Mehsana in Recovery Application No. 77/2008 (Old no. 4/2005) (Annexure -A); [B] Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and effect of the judgment and order dated 15.09.2015 passed by the Labour Court, Mehsana in Recovery Application No. 77/2008 (Old no. 4/2005) (Annexure -A);" 2. Pursuant to notice issued by this Court, the respondent No. 1 - employee has appeared through Mr. Rajesh P. Mankad and has filed two affidavits-in-reply on the record and opposed grant of any reliefs, as prayed for, by the petitioner. 3. The brief facts arise from the record are as under: 3.1 The respondent - employee raised an industrial dispute about his illegal termination by the present petitioner - employer, which was referred to the learned Labour Court, Kalol, which was numbered as Reference (LCK) No. 168 of 1988. By judgment and award dated 23.12.2002, the said reference came to be allowed in part. 3.2 Since none of the parties challenged the said judgment and award dated 23.12.2002 before the higher authority, the award dated 23.12.2002 became final. 3.3 The respondent - employee filed an application under Section - 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for implementation/execution of the award, which was numbered as Recovery Application No.04 of 2005 and subsequently, new number was given as Recovery Application No. 77 of 2008. 3.4 The said application was opposed by the present petitioner - employer by submitting that the impugned award has been implemented and the awarded amount has already been paid to the respondent - employee. After hearing both the parties, the learned Labour Court, by impugned order dated 15.09.2015, allowed the recovery application and directed the petitioner - employer to pay an amount of Rs.2,36,932/- towards the arrears of back wages treating the respondent - employee reinstated with continuity of services and declaring respondent - employee entitled for increment etc. 3.5 Hence, this petition. 4. Mr. 3.5 Hence, this petition. 4. Mr. Rishin R. Patel learned advocate for Mr. Varun K. Patel learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the learned Labour Court has exceeded the jurisdiction vested with it while dealing with the application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. He would further submit that the learned Labour Court has interpreted the awarded amount, for which, respondent employee was not entitled for so. He would further submit that the reference was allowed in part and after discussing the merits of the case and the contentions raised by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the learned Labour Court had held that the termination of employee was illegal and therefore, the petitioner - employer was directed to pay the 50% of the back wages from 01.08.1983 to 01.02.2002 only. He would further submit that there was no subsequent order by the learned Labour Court while allowing the reference in part to treat the retired employee with continuity of services or no direction was given to pay all consequential benefits. He would further submit that the learned Labour Court has, therefore, committed grave error in interpreting the award, which is beyond the scope of recovery proceedings. In support of his case, he has relied upon the decisions in case of A.P.SRTC and Anr. Vs. S. Narsagoud reported in (2003) 2 SCC 212 and A.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others Vs. Abdul Kareem reported in (2005) 6 SCC 36 and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda Vs. Gitaben Haribhai Darji deceased through her legal heir reported in 2006(1) LLJ 404 . He would submit that considering the ratio laid down in the above referred cases, the petitioner may be allowed and the impugned order may be quashed and set aside. 5. On the other hand, Mr.Rajesh P. Mankad, learned advocate appearing for the respondent employee, has vehemently submitted that the petition requires dismissal since the learned Labour Court has rightly dealt with the recovery application. He would submit that when the order of termination is declared illegal as well as when 50% back wages are granted, the respondent employee should be treated as if he was in his service and therefore, continuity of services is required to be taken into consideration while implementing the award. He would submit that when the order of termination is declared illegal as well as when 50% back wages are granted, the respondent employee should be treated as if he was in his service and therefore, continuity of services is required to be taken into consideration while implementing the award. He would further submit that when granting increment to the employee is concerned, the same is required to be allowed since there is continuity of services. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the decision in case of Vasantika R. Dalia Vs. Baroda Municipal Corporation reported in 1997(3) GLR 1879 , the decision in case of Union of India Vs. Kishor Lakha & Anr. reported in 2004(1) GLH 101 , the decision in case of Pratikshaben B. Utrankar and Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 2004(1) GLH 501 . 6. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. It is an undisputed fact that the industrial dispute, which was awarded in Reference (LCK) No. 168 of 1988, was allowed in part. The learned Labour Court has declared that the termination of services of the respondent - employee was illegal. However, the learned Labour Court has not directed that his services shall be treated as continuous one and would be entitled for all consequential benefits. Specific observations are missing in the judgment and award, which had become final since the same was not challenged by any of the parties. 7. While dealing with the recovery proceedings, the learned Labour Court has interpreting the award, which is beyond the scope of Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court has in case of A.P.SRTC and Anr. Vs. S. Narsagoud (Supra), held in Para - 9, which reads as under: "9. We find merit in the submission so made. There is a difference between an order of reinstatement accompanied by a simple direction for continuity of service and a direction where reinstatement is accompanied by a specific direction that the employee shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits, which necessarily flow from reinstatement or accompanied by a specific direction that the employee shall be entitled to the benefit of the increments earned during the period of absence. In our opinion, the employee after having been held guilty of unauthorized absence from duty cannot claim the benefit of increments notionally earned during the period of unauthorized absence in the absence of a specific direction in that regard and merely because he has been directed to be reinstated with the benefit of continuity in service." 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in case of A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (Supra), held in Para - 11 as under: "11. Reverting to the facts of the case at hand, as already noticed, the Labour Court specifically directed that the reinstatement would be without back wages. There is no specific direction that the employee would be entitled to all the consequential benefits. Therefore, in the absence of specific direction in that regard, merely because an employee has been directed to be reinstated without back wages, he cannot claim a benefit of increments notionally earned during the period when he was not on duty during the period when he was out of service. It would be incongruous to suggest that an employee, having been held guilty and remained absent from duty for a long time, continues to earn increments though there is no payment of wages for the period of absence." 9. The Division Bench of this Court has, in case of Regional Manager, Bank of Barod (Supra), held in Para - 5 as under: "5. Form the above referred judgments of the Supreme Court and number of other judgments of this Court, it is well established that provisions under Sec.22(C)(2) of the I.D.Act would apply to a case where the entitlement is not disputed and the status is also admitted. The Supreme Court has observed that the moment a dispute in relation to facts or entitlement is raised, then the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court would have no jurisdiction to make an award or pass an order exercising its jurisdiction under Sec.33(C)(2) of the Act." 10. As far as the decisions in cases of Vasantika R. Dalia (Supra), Union of India (Supra) and Pratikshaben B. Utrankar (Supra) relied upon by the Mankad, learned advocate appearing for the respondent - employee is concerned, the decisions rendered are prior to the decisions in the year 2007 and the decision in the year 2003 i.e. A.P.SRTC and Anr. As far as the decisions in cases of Vasantika R. Dalia (Supra), Union of India (Supra) and Pratikshaben B. Utrankar (Supra) relied upon by the Mankad, learned advocate appearing for the respondent - employee is concerned, the decisions rendered are prior to the decisions in the year 2007 and the decision in the year 2003 i.e. A.P.SRTC and Anr. (Supra), has not been drawn to the notice of the concerned Court and therefore, at present, the same is not considered. Hence, the present petition is allowed. The order dated 15.09.2015 passed by the Labour Court, Mehsana in Recovery Application No. 77/2008 (Old no. 4/2005) is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute. Direct service is permitted.