CWP No.16424 of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No.16424 of 2002 Date of decision October 14, 2009 Director Research and Medical Education, Punjab, Chandigarh and another ....... Petitioner Versus Smt. Kamlesh w/o Sh. Som Nath and another ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Ms. Monica Chibbar Sharma, DAG., Punjab. Mr. R. K. Mattoo, Advocate for for Mr. Raj Kaushik, Advocate for respondent No.1. **** 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? No **** K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The writ petition challenges the direction contained in the award of the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the workman by holding that the termination of service had been violative of the provisions of Section 25-H. Learned counsel appearing for the State states that subsequent to the award of the Labour Court on 6.11.2001, the workman has been reinstated in service on 12.4.2004. The workman who has been granted relief under Section 25-H it could not have been granted relief of reinstatement but it could only be of reemployment. The distinction between reinstatement and reemployment has been emphasized in several cases, for, it has an important bearing on service conditions relating to CWP No.16424 of 2002 2 seniority, continuity of service and the mode of reckoning the terminal benefits. The direction ought to have been only for reemployment which would take effect from the new appointment which were the subject of challenge before the Labour Court were made. The modification that the award of the Labour Court shall therefore suffer is that the workman shall be directed to be reemployed with effect from the date when the new appointees were inducted after the termination of the services of the workman. 2. Needless to state that the workman shall be entitled to computation of benefits that would apply to a case of reemployment. 3. Subject to above modification, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall, however, be no direction as to costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 14, 2009 archana