JUDGMENT : A.S. Supehia, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia for the following relief: "7.(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in nature of mandamus or an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the ex-parte impugned order passed in Reference (LCB) No. 405 of 1998 dated 02.04.2004 and the order passed in Miscellaneous Application No. 28 of 2004 for restoration dated 29.10.2012 (Annexure - 'A'), in the interest of justice." 2. While issuing rule vide order dated 26.12.2012, this Court has passed the following order: "Rule. Interim relief qua continuity of service and full back wages is granted on condition that the respondent workman shall be reinstated in service within a period of thirty days from today. It is clarified that if the workman is not reinstated within the prescribed period, it shall be open to the respondent workman to move the competent court for appropriate orders for monthly wages under Section 33(C)(2) as if he was in continued service." 3. During pendency of the present writ petition, the respondent-workman has already reached the age of superannuation in April, 2021. Pursuant to the interim order, the respondent-workman was reinstated in service however, no specific date is known either to the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner or to the learned advocate appearing for the respondent-workman. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Jani appearing for the petitioner has submitted that since the issue is involved with regard to continuity of service and full back wages, the matter may be remanded back and ex parte award may be set aside. It is submitted that huge liability of full back wages from 1997 to 2004 will be fastened on the petitioner. It is further submitted that it is true that the petitioner was unable to appear before the Labour Court and reference has been decided ex parte. It is submitted that when the award was published, immediately within limitation period an application being Misc. Application No. 28 of 2004 was filed for restoration under the provisions of Rule 26A of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules, 1966 (for short "the Rules") for setting aside the ex parte award however, the application was not entertained and the same was rejected by the order dated 29.10.2012. It is submitted that appropriate costs may be imposed and the matter may be remanded. 5. It is submitted that appropriate costs may be imposed and the matter may be remanded. 5. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr. Patadiya has submitted that since the respondent-workman had already reached the age of superannuation and he was reinstated in service pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court, the impugned orders may not be interfered with. 6. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and also perused the documents as pointed out by them. 7. It appears that the respondent-workman on his termination raised an industrial dispute, which culminated into Reference (LCB) No. 405 of 1998. Despite the issuance of notice, the petitioner did not care to appear in the reference proceedings and, therefore, the same was decided ex parte by directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent-workman with continuity of service and full back wages. After the aforesaid award was published, the petitioner filed Misc. Application No. 28 of 2004 under the provision of Rule 26A of the Rules. A perusal of the application reveals that in fact the petitioner has admitted that the petitioner could not remain present in the reference proceedings. It is further submitted that though the subsequent notice was issued before closing the defence, rights to lead the evidence was closed, without issuance of any notice hence, the impugned award dated 02.04.2004 has been passed by the Labour Court by directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent-workman with full back wages however, bare perusal of the award reveals that the Labour Court has not recorded any submissions of the respondent-workman nor any observation is made with regard to his unemployment. It is not in dispute that immediately after publication of the award, the petitioner has filed an application for setting aside or recalling the ex parte award. 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Labour Court should have recalled the ex parte award and decided the same on merits, since the petitioner immediately filed the application for recalling such award. Thus, the matter requires remand however, since the interim order dated 26.12.2012 was not challenged and accepted by the petitioner, and pursuant to which the respondent-workman was reinstated in service and he has already retired in the year 2021, this Court is not disturbing the aspect of reinstatement. Thus, the matter requires remand however, since the interim order dated 26.12.2012 was not challenged and accepted by the petitioner, and pursuant to which the respondent-workman was reinstated in service and he has already retired in the year 2021, this Court is not disturbing the aspect of reinstatement. The principle of law is well settled that once the reinstatement is granted, continuity of service is deemed to have been granted even if the same is not mentioned in the order. 9. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors., 2002 (9) S.C.C. 492 , wherein it has been observed thus: "3. 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. It is not a case of fresh appointment, but it is a case of reinstatement. That being the position, direction of the High Court that the plaintiff will not get continuity of service cannot be sustained and we set aside the part of the impugned order. So far as the arrears of salary is concerned, we see no infirmity with the direction which was given by the lower appellate court taking into account the facts and circumstances including the fact that the suit was filed after a considerable length of time. That part of the decree denying the arrears of salary stands affirmed and this appeal stands allowed in part to the extent indicated above." 9.1. Thus, the Supreme Court has enunciated that the continuity of service cannot be denied to the workman if he is directed to be reinstated in service on setting aside the order of termination. The petitioner is not apposing the writ petition for reinstatement, but for continuity and back wages. Once, the reinstatement is not opposed and if the same is confirmed, the continuity of service follows as a necessary consequence. Hence, the aspect of continuity of service is not disturbed. 10. In view of the changed circumstances as the respondent-workman has already retired from service, the matter only requires remand for the purpose of assessing the back wages. 11. Once, the reinstatement is not opposed and if the same is confirmed, the continuity of service follows as a necessary consequence. Hence, the aspect of continuity of service is not disturbed. 10. In view of the changed circumstances as the respondent-workman has already retired from service, the matter only requires remand for the purpose of assessing the back wages. 11. The impugned award dated 02.04.2004 passed in Reference (LCB) No. 405 of 1998 by the Labour Court, Bhavnagar is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded only for the purpose of determination of the back wages and Reference (LCB) No. 405 of 1998 is ordered to be restored to its original file. Labour Court, after giving an opportunity of hearing and after considering the evidence, which would be led by the either of the parties, shall pass a fresh award with regard to the back wages only. Since the reference is of 1998 and the respondent-workman has already retired, it is expected that the reference may be decided within a period of six months. 12. The present writ petition is allowed in part. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent.