JUDGMENT : Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. 1. The petitioner is a Sugar Mill having been incorporated under the Company’s Act. For the purposes of undertaking the work in the mill of the petitioner, they have been often now and then engaging the workmen to discharge the work of the mill. The Respondent No. 2, who was engaged by the petitioner as back as in 1978-79, has worked till 1985-86 in all the seasons continuously and, later on, he had reported for his duty for the season commencing from 28th, November, 1986, but, his services were dispensed with by the petitioner, by their order dated 28th, November, 1986. The workman respondent No. 2 has raised a dispute involved under Section 2-A of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the dispute was referred under Section 4-K of the UP Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by Government order dated 11th June, 1988, and it was registered as an Adjudication Case No. 118 of 1988. 2. After exchange of written statements between the parties, the Labour Court on 20th July, 1997, rendered an award, whereby, by the award, it was held out that the action of the petitioner for not taking services from the respondent No.2 for the season commencing from 1986-87, was unjustified and a direction was issued that he would be engaged in the forthcoming season and would be paid half wages and 1/4th of the retaining allowance. 3. Against this order, the petitioner preferred a Writ Petition before the Allahabad High Court, being Writ Petition No.3619 of 1998, in which, initially, there was an interim order granted on 19th March, 1998 and, ultimately, on the reorganization of the State, the writ petition was transferred to the State of Uttarakhand and re-numbered as Writ Petition No. 7101 of 2001. The said Writ Petition was ultimately adjudicated by the Coordinate Bench of this Court by the judgement dated 31st May, 2010 and the writ petition was partly allowed with the following directions : “Since it has been stated at Bar that the workman has been reinstated pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court and is working continuously since then without any break in service, this Court is of the opinion that the direction of the Labour Court in its award directing reinstatement of the workman should not be disturbed. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is partly allowed. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is partly allowed. The award of the Labour Court in so far as reinstatement of the workman is concerned, is affirmed but the direction for the payment of backwages and 1/4 of the retaining allowance is being set aside. In view of the partial success, the parties shall bear there own cost.” 4. It is the contention of the Counsel of the petitioner that in compliance of the interim order as granted by the Allahabad High Court, the respondent No.2 was reinstated and respondent No. 2 had discharged his duties with them. This court in its judgement dated 31st May, 2010 affirmed the award so far it related to the direction of reinstatement, but, set aside the part of the award so far it directed the payment of 50% of backwages and 1/4th of the retaining allowance. 5. The judgment as rendered by this Court on 31st May, 2010, has attained finality and it has not been questioned. The petitioner in the present writ petition had filed the writ petition questioning the order dated 29th, June, 2017 and 23/24th, August, 2017, passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Haridwar in Adjudication Case No. 110 of 1988. 6. In pursuance to the impugned award dated 29th June, 2017, the Assistant Labour Commissioner for determining the tenor of service as rendered by the respondent No.2, which was to be reckoned for other benefits, subsequently, in furtherance of the High Court Judgment dated 31.05.2010, the Assistant Labour Commissioner by the order dated 24th August, 2017, under challenge in the writ petition, the learned Assistant Labour Commissioner had provided continuity of service to respondent No.2 from the date of his induction. 7. The argument of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the directions as given by the impugned order of providing continuity to the services of respondent No.2, happens to be contrary to the judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench on 31st May, 2010, while adjudicating against the award dated 28th July, 1997. 8. Apparently, the argument which is extended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner does not appeal to the court. 8. Apparently, the argument which is extended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner does not appeal to the court. The reason behind it is that the judgment of this High Court dated 31st May, 2010 is scrutinized, it has nowhere issued any direction or has passed any order that respondent No.2 would not be providing continuity of service since the date of his induction. Even otherwise also, it is absolutely illogical that once a workman has been inducted in the year 1978-79 and his services were discontinued because of the order of termination or dispensation of service, which has been ultimately set aside resulting into reinstatement of an employee, the effect of the reinstatement would be that he acquires the status as existing prior to the order of termination and takes a situation as if there had never been any order of termination, thus, he becomes entitled for the continuity from the date of induction because the termination order, itself, will become a non est order. Hence, the findings recorded in the impugned order directing the continuity of the services of the respondent No.2, does not suffer from any error both on facts or law. 9. In that view of the matter and for the above reasons, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. 10. No order as to cost.