ORDER : VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J. 1. This appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent by the appellants- original respondents wherein the appellants have challenged the order dated 23.02.2022 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the petition filed by the respondent- original petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. H. S. Munshaw, learned advocate appearing for the appellants and Ms.Reena Kamani, learned advocate for the respondent. 3. Mr.Munshaw, learned advocate for the appellants mainly submits that the respondent-original petitioner was working with the appellants- original respondents since 30.06.1988 as a ‘Rojamdar’ Helper under the Deputy Executive Engineer, Surendranagar. It is submitted that the case of the respondent- original petitioner is that the services of the original petitioner came to be terminated with effect from 01.07.1992, and therefore, the original petitioner approached the Labour Court by filing Reference (LCF) No.97 of 1995. The Labour Court passed an award on 03.04.2006 whereby the original respondents were directed to reinstate the original petitioner without back wages. The original petitioner as well as the appellants- original respondents both challenged the said award by filing separate petitions before this Court. It is submitted that both the petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court by a common oral order dated 12.01.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner came to be reinstated as per the award passed by the Labour Court. On reinstatement, vide order dated 05.06.2017 the benefits of the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 as per the 5th Pay Commission were given to the original petitioner. Learned advocate for the appellants further submits that once again on 18.07.2017, the original respondents granted certain benefits to the original petitioner. A copy of the said order is placed on record at page 51 of the compilation. 4. Learned advocate for the appellants further submits that once again on 18.07.2017, the original respondents granted certain benefits to the original petitioner. A copy of the said order is placed on record at page 51 of the compilation. 4. At this stage, learned advocate for the appellants submits that thereafter the original petitioner filed the captioned petition before this Court, wherein the original petitioner prayed for the following reliefs: “(A) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the respondents In not considering the initial date of appointment of the petitioner for granting the benefits of resolution dated 17.10.1988 and not granting the pay scale of Sixth Pay Commission recommendation as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, without application of mind and in violative of Art. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and hence, be pleased to direct the respondents to treat petitioner's appointment as 30.06.1988 instead of 15.9:2006 and grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner with 12% interest. (B) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to hold that the pay of the petitioner is wrongly fixed in the pay scale as per the Fifth Pay Commission recommendation instead of Sixth Pay Commission recommendation and hence, be pleased to direct the respondents to re-fix the pay of the petitioner as per the Sixth Pay Commission recommendation from retrospective date and pay the arrears of the petitioner with 12% interest. (C) Pending admission and final disposal of the present petition, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents to start paying the pay scale of Sixth Pay Commission recommendation to the petitioner forthwith by considering his date of appointment as 30.06.1988. (D) Any other and further relief that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit.” 5. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 23.02.2022, allowed the petition filed by the original petitioner and thereafter, directed the original respondents-appellants to confer the benefits of the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 from the initial date of appointment of the original petitioner after considering the continuity of service. It is further observed by the learned Single Judge that the period from 30.06.1988 to 03.04.2006 shall be treated as notional. However, the benefits of the resolution shall be given to the original petitioner counting his entire period of service from the initial date of appointment. It is further observed by the learned Single Judge that the period from 30.06.1988 to 03.04.2006 shall be treated as notional. However, the benefits of the resolution shall be given to the original petitioner counting his entire period of service from the initial date of appointment. It is further observed by the learned Single Judge that all consequential benefits including the benefits of the 6th Pay Commission which are granted to similarly situated employees shall be given to the petitioner. Learned advocate further submits that the appellants- original respondents have, therefore, preferred this appeal. 6. Learned advocate for the appellants would mainly submits that the Labour Court has not granted continuity of service while passing the award dated 03.04.2006, and therefore, the original petitioner is not entitled to claim benefits for the period between 30.06.1988 to 03.04.2006. Learned advocate for the appellants further submits that the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 is conferred to the original petitioner after considering the services for the period between 1988 to 1992 and thereafter, from 2006 to 2016, and therefore, the learned Single Judge has committed an error while passing the impugned order. 7. The learned advocate for the appellants at this stage, has placed reliance upon the order dated 23.02.2023 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.224 of 2023, wherein the Division Bench has modified the order passed by the learned Single Judge by observing that the concerned original petitioners/private respondents- daily wagers are entitled to pension, gratuity and other terminal benefits after considering those years in which the concerned petitioners have completed 240 days of service. It is submitted that this Court may also modify the order passed by the learned Single Judge to the aforesaid effect. The learned advocate, therefore, urged that the present appeal be allowed. 8. On the other hand, learned advocate Ms.Kamani for the respondent- original petitioner has opposed this appeal and submitted that the Labour Court has passed an award whereby the present appellants- original respondents were directed to reinstate the original petitioner without back wages. The learned advocate, therefore, urged that the present appeal be allowed. 8. On the other hand, learned advocate Ms.Kamani for the respondent- original petitioner has opposed this appeal and submitted that the Labour Court has passed an award whereby the present appellants- original respondents were directed to reinstate the original petitioner without back wages. It is submitted that the Labour Court has not specifically denied the continuity of service, and therefore, as per the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nandkishore Shravan Ahirrao versus Kosan Industries (P) Ltd., reported in AIR 2020 SC 1776 , once reinstatement was awarded by the Labour Court, continuity of service would follow as a matter of course. At this stage, it is submitted that relying upon the aforesaid decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Division Bench of this Court has also passed an order dated 07.03.2023 in Letters Patent Appeal No.1737 of 2022 and thereby continuity of service is granted to the concerned petitioners. 9. The learned advocate for the respondent- original petitioner has also placed reliance upon the order dated 23.09.2022 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1246 of 2022. It is submitted that in the said order also, the Division Bench of this Court has considered the aforesaid decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nandkishore Shravan Ahirrao (supra). The learned advocate for the respondent, therefore, urged that the original petitioner is entitled to claim the continuity of service, and therefore, the original respondents are bound to give the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 after considering the entire service of the petitioner from the year 1988. The learned advocate for the respondent-original petitioner urged that when the learned Single Judge has not committed any error while passing the impugned order, this Court may not entertain the present appeal. 10. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the materials placed on record, it would emerge that the original petitioner had worked for a period between 1988 to 1992 and thereafter, his service came to be terminated on 01.07.1992. He, therefore, preferred a Reference before the Labour Court and the Labour Court passed an award dated 03.04.2006, whereby the original respondents were directed to reinstate the original petitioner, however, back wages were not awarded. He, therefore, preferred a Reference before the Labour Court and the Labour Court passed an award dated 03.04.2006, whereby the original respondents were directed to reinstate the original petitioner, however, back wages were not awarded. It is pertinent to note that the Labour Court has not specifically denied the continuity of service, and therefore, as per the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nandkishore Shravan Ahirrao (supra), the continuity of service would follow as a matter of law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in para 7 of the said decision as under: . Ex facie, the Labour Court having awarded reinstatement to the appellant, continuity of service would follow as a matter of law. The award of the Labour Court dated 27 February 2008 does not specifically deny continuity of service. Hence the observation of the High Court to the effect that the Labour Court had denied continuity of service is erroneous and would accordingly stand corrected in terms of what has been observed herein-above. The appellant would be entitled to continuity of service. 11. It would further emerge from the record that the original respondents- present appellants have granted the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the original petitioner by considering his services from the year 2006. The order dated 05.06.2017 came to be passed whereby certain benefits were granted to the petitioner. A copy of the said order is placed on record at page 49 of the compilation. Thereafter, on 18.07.2017, another order came to be passed granting certain other benefits to the original petitioner. A copy of the said order is placed at page 51 of the compilation. However, if the aforesaid orders are carefully seen, it reveals that the original respondents have granted the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 by considering the services from the year 2006 to 2016. As observed hereinabove, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically held that if the Labour Court has not denied the continuity of service, the continuity would follow as a matter of law, and therefore, the original respondents are bound to give continuity of service to the original petitioner. Therefore, the original petitioner is entitled to get the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 as directed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the original petitioner is entitled to get the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 as directed by the learned Single Judge. It is pertinent to note that the learned Single Judge has specifically observed in the impugned order that the period from 30.06.1988 to 03.04.2006 shall be treated as notional. 12. Now, the learned advocate for the appellants has placed reliance upon the order dated 23.02.2023 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.224 of 2023 and submitted that the Division Bench has specifically observed in the said order that the concerned petitioners- daily wagers are entitled for pension, gratuity and other terminal benefits after considering those years in which they have completed 240 days of service, and therefore, in the present case also, the order passed by the learned Single Judge be modified to that extent. 13. We are of the view that the aforesaid contention is misconceived. The facts of the case upon which reliance is placed by the learned advocate for the appellants-original respondents are totally different. In the present case, the original petitioner is in service and his services came to be terminated illegally without following mandatory provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, and therefore, the Labour Court passed an award and directed the original respondents to reinstate the original petitioner. When the respondent challenged the said order by filing the petition before this Court, the said petition came to be dismissed and thereby the learned Single Judge has confirmed the award passed by the Labour Court. Therefore, it is not open for the present appellants- original respondents to contend that while granting the benefits, 240 days of service in a particular year is required to be counted. Even otherwise the learned Single Judge has observed that the petitioner is entitled to get the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 after considering continuity of service of the petitioner from the year 1988 till 2006 and, therefore, we are of the view that no modification as urged by the learned advocate for the appellants is required in the facts of the present case. 14. We have gone through the reasoning recorded by the learned Single Judge and we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error while passing the impugned order, and therefore, no interference is required. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. 14. We have gone through the reasoning recorded by the learned Single Judge and we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error while passing the impugned order, and therefore, no interference is required. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. 15. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the Civil Application would not survive and the same is disposed of.