JUDGMENT : PRANAV TRIVEDI, J. The present Letters Patent Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent is filed by the original respondents assailing the correctness of the judgment and order dated 06.03.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 21570 of 2017. 2. The prayer made in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge by the original petitioners–present respondents was to give appropriate directions to grant benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the petitioners on completion of 20 years of service and further direct to grant arrears arising out of it with 8% interest thereon. 3. The learned Single Judge held that once the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the termination of the petitioners were ineffective and since it was in violation of provisions of the Industrial Tribunal Act, reinstatement was directed. Continuity would therefore, naturally follow. It was further directed that the continuity is to be read into the awards passed by the Labour Court, the entire period of service right from the date of reinstatement has to be treated as continuous and uninterrupted. 3.1. It was further observed by the learned Single Judge that the petitioners were beneficiaries of the award of the labour court and implicitly the benefit of continuity of service has to be read in such awards. Their past services have to be treated as services for the purposes of granting them the benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. It is this direction which is challenged in this present appeal. 4. The background of facts which has led to filing of the writ petition are that the original petitioners were working in the respondents from the year 1983. The services of the original petitioners were terminated pursuant to which, the petitioners raised an industrial dispute, which came to be numbered as Reference (LCB) Nos. 219 to 266 of 1989. On 17.01.2000, the labour court passed an award directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioners on their original post with back wages. This award came to be challenged before this Court by preferring writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 6017 of 2000. By way of judgment and order dated 24.08.2005, this Court modified the award and confirmed the reinstatement and set aside the portion of back-wages. 4.1. This award came to be challenged before this Court by preferring writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 6017 of 2000. By way of judgment and order dated 24.08.2005, this Court modified the award and confirmed the reinstatement and set aside the portion of back-wages. 4.1. The said judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge is not challenged any further and has attained finality. The said direction given by the learned Single Judge in writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 6017 of 2000 is as under, “6. In the result, the petition qua respondent nos. 3, 4 and 6 is partly allowed. The impugned award dated 17th January, 2000 passed by the Labour Court, Bhavnagar in Reference [L.C.B.] No. 219 to 226 of 1989, qua backwages is quashed and set aside and rest of the award is confirmed. The petitioner shall reinstate respondent nos. 3, 4 and 6 in service within one month from the date of receipt of this Court and shall grant all the benefits accordingly within a period of three months thereafter. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.” 4.2. Pursuant to the judgment and order dated 24.08.2005, the original petitioners were reinstated in service, but continuity was not granted and they were paid minimum wages. On this factual aspect, the original petitioners preferred writ petition on the ground that they have completed more than 25 years of service and were entitled for the benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, which benefit was denied to them by the respondents. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions, against which, the present appeal is preferred. 5. We have heard learned advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw for the appellants and learned advocate Mr. M.T Mishra for the respondents. 6. It has been contended by learned advocate Mr. Munshaw that the respondents – original petitioners were offered work on daily basis with effect from 21.05.1986 on public works depending upon availability of the work and were offered work up to 07.01.1989. It was further contended that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact that the respondents were not offered work on any permanent and sanctioned posts and no recruitment procedure was followed while providing work to the respondents on daily basis. It was further contended that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact that the respondents were not offered work on any permanent and sanctioned posts and no recruitment procedure was followed while providing work to the respondents on daily basis. It was further contended that the learned Single Judge has erred in not appreciating that Reference No. 224 of 1989 and Reference No. 221 of 1989 respectively were allowed partly on 17.01.2000 by the labour court, Bhavnagar and there was no order with regard to continuity in service to daily wagers. Lastly, it was contended that the learned Single Judge had not appreciated the fact that almost 11 years had passed in between the date of termination i.e. on 07.01.1989 and award dated 17.01.2000 and therefore, once the award of back wages was quashed, award as regards reinstatement was confirmed and the respondents original petitioners would not have been given continuity nor back wages. 7. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Mishra for the respondents – original petitioners had contended that the respondents have completed 25 years of service according to Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act. He has further submitted that the labour court had granted continuity of service which was upheld by this Court and, therefore, the respondents – original petitioners were entitled for the benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. Learned advocate Mr. Mishra has relied upon the following decisions:- (i) In the case of Kutch District Panchayat & Ors., v. Mangalbhai K. Rabari & Ors., rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1381 of 2015 dated 04.01.2016. (ii) In the case of Amreli District Panchyat & Ors., v. Pravinkumar Nanalal Trivedi & Ors., rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No. 901 of 2016 dated 03.10.2016. 8. Further, it was contended by learned advocate Mr. Mishra that this issue being confirmed by this Court, the appeal is required to be dismissed. 9. Having considered the submissions of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, one glaring fact is required to be noted is that the award passed by the labour court on 17.01.2000, which was challenged before this Court. Mishra that this issue being confirmed by this Court, the appeal is required to be dismissed. 9. Having considered the submissions of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, one glaring fact is required to be noted is that the award passed by the labour court on 17.01.2000, which was challenged before this Court. However, this Court vide order dated 24.08.2005 passed in Special Civil Application No. 6017 of 2000 has categorically observed that - ‘the appellant shall reinstate the respondents within one months from the date of receipt of writ of this Court and shall grant all the benefits accordingly within a period of three months thereafter. The said order dated 24.08.2005 has attained finality. 10. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, it appears that it is not in dispute that the respondents were initially appointed in the year 1983 and continued till the year 1989. In the year 1989, the services of the respondents came to be terminated and, therefore, industrial dispute was raised whereby, the labour court partly allowed the reference, which award has also become final, except for the part of backwages. 11. Pursuant to the award of the labour court, the respondents are reinstated in service and continued as such. Apart from the order of the labour court, the respondents are actually working for more than 20 years on daily wages. 12. In that view of the matter, we see no reason not to grant benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. The Government Resolution would apply to extend benefits to those working on daily wage basis. We do not find any merit in the appeal and we hereby confirm the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 13. Resultantly, the appeal being meritless, same is dismissed. No orders as to costs. Consequently, connected Civil Applications would not survive in view of the disposal of Letters Patent Appeals. Direct Service is permitted.