IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 4560 of 2009. Date of Decision : May 22, 2009. Sunil Kumar Saini. ....... Petitioner. Versus. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala, and others. ....... Respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate, for Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Longia, Advocate, for the respondents No. 2 to 4. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present writ petition, the limited challenge to the award dated 11.11.2008 (Annexure-P-4) by the petitioner-workman is that the Labour Court while answering reference in favour of the petitioner has held him entitled to reinstatement in service after holding that the termination of services of the petitioner-workman being wrong, illegal, null and void ab- initio but without continuity of service and without back wages. Counsel for the petitioner had at the initial stage when the notice of motion was issued in the present case pressed merely for continuity of service and had foregone his claim with regard to the back wages. He contends that once the Labour Court has come to a conclusion that the order of termination of services of the workman was wrong, illegal, null and void ab- initio and has further held the workman entitled to reinstatement in service, non grant of continuity of service would be repugnant to the relief of C.W.P. No. 4560 of 2009. reinstatement granted by the Labour Court. He contends that the limited deprival of the workman of the continuity of service, is not sustainable and, therefore, press for modification of the said award dated 11.11.2008 (Annexure-P-4) to this extent in relief in the impugned award. Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has submitted that powers exercised by the Labour Court is fully justified in the given facts and circumstances of the case. He submits that the award is just and reasonable and does not call for any interference by this Court. However, he is unable to rebut the assertion put forth by counsel for the petitioner that non grant of continuity of service would be not in consonance with the relief of reinstatement. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case especially the relief clause wherein the Labour Court has clearly held that the termination of services of the petitioner-workman was wrong, illegal, null and void ab-initio and further the Labour Court has held the workman entitled to reinstatement in service. Once the reinstatement has been granted, the word itself connotes and imbibes in itself the continuity. On reinstatement the person is put back on his previous position at the same stage which he was holding at the time of his alleged termination. When reinstatement has been granted, continuity has to follow as it would be a consequence of the reinstatement itself. This court in the case of Boota Singh versus Chandigarh Transport Undertaking through Secretary to the Transport U.T. Administration, Chandigarh, and another, C.W.P. No. 2679 of 1997 decided on 06.05.2009 relying on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh -2- C.W.P. No. 4560 of 2009. Versus State of Punjab and others, 2003(2) S.C.T. 226, has held as follows :-. “ A perusal of the above would show that order of termination passed by the respondent-Management was held to be bad and accordingly, set aside. The workman was ordered to be reinstated in service. Due to the delayed demand notice, back wages were denied but he was held entitled to continuity of service with effect from the date of demand notice. The workman was ordered to be reinstated in service and in the position, when he was terminated. It has further been held that he shall be entitled to continuity of service, which shows the intent of the Court that continuity of service was granted to him by putting a rider, to be from the date of demand notice. The reinstatement of the workman in service is rendered as a fresh appointment from the date of demand notice, this would in effect mean the words “reinstated” and “continuity of service” has lost its significance in the relief as granted by the Labour Court vide the impugned award. This cannot be said to be the intention of the Labour Court. It cannot be disputed that the Labour Court has the discretion to grant relief but the same has to be read with and in the context of the effect of the said relief unless there is no ambiguity. Once the Court has held the termination as bad and set aside the same and further directed the reinstatement of the workman in service, its normal consequence would be to take back the employee from the date of termination. The Labour Court, in the given facts and -3- C.W.P. No. 4560 of 2009. circumstances of the case, while exercising its powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, can impose any lesser punishment and may impose such terms and conditions as it thinks fit. In the light of the judgment relied upon by counsel for the petitioner i.e. Gurpreet Singh Versus State of Punjab and others (supra), wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court has said that reinstatement in service would amount to continuity of service, the workman would be entitled to reinstatement in service with continuity thereof from the date of his termination.” In view of the above, the workman is held entitled to continuity of service alongwith other reliefs granted by the Labour Court vide its award dated 11.11.2008 (Annexure-P-4). In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed granting the workman continuity of service apart from other reliefs which have been granted by the Labour Court vide its award dated 11.11.2008. The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE May 22, 2009. sjks. Whether referred to the Reporter : Yes / No. -4-