IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 2788 of 2007 Date of decision: 02.03.2009 Sham Lal son of Shri Som Dutt .....PETITIONER VERSUS Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. J.S.Maanipur, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Kirti Singh, AAG, Haryana, for respondents No. 2 and 3. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the limited extent with regard to the award dated 20.02.2006 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Labour Court, Ambala, where the workman had been denied the benefit of continuity of service while reinstating him back in service after holding that the termination of the workman was not in accordance with the Industrial Disputes Act. Counsel for the petitioner contends that in the present writ petition, he is not claiming the back wages but is only claiming the continuity of service, which he was denied, in the light of the findings recorded by the Labour Court that there was a long continuous delay of eight years before the demand notice was raised. He contends that once the workman has been reinstated in service by the Labour Court, the CWP No. 2788 of 2007 -2- natural consequence thereof would be continuity of service. He relies upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, 2003 (2) SCT 226, to contend that where the Court directs reinstatement in service on setting aside the order of termination, it is not a case of fresh appointment and in those circumstances, continuity of service cannot be denied to the workman. On the other hand, counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 contends that the Labour Court, while exercising powers under Section 11- A of the Industrial Disputes Act, has rightly denied the workman the continuity of service and valid reasons have been given for not granting the same as the Labour Court has taken into consideration the fact that the workman had raised his demand after a delay of eight years and had remained silent with regard to his illegal termination, as alleged by him. Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 contends that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh's case (supra) would not be applicable to the case in hand as that is not a matter under the Industrial Disputes Act and is an order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a civil suit, which reached the Hon'ble Supreme Court. She relies upon Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act to contend that it is the discretion of the Labour Court to grant relief in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, it cannot be claimed that the natural consequence of reinstatement would be continuity of service. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The Labour Court has, while granting relief to the workman, granted him reinstatement in service but without continuity of service and back wages. The petitioner-workman had failed to explain any reason whatsoever for having remained silent for a long continuous period of eight CWP No. 2788 of 2007 -3- years after the illegal termination of his services. Delay as such would be a valid ground for not giving any relief to the workman but the same having not been taken as a ground to deprive the workman of the benefit of reinstatement in service, the same can be used to deprive the back wages to the petitioner-workman, which has rightly been done by the Labour Court. A perusal of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court would show that the reinstatement in service in itself means continuity of service as the workman is put back in the same position and on the same post, on which he was working, when his services were terminated not in accordance with law. Had it been a case of fresh appointment, the position would have been totally different but the word 'reinstatement' itself connotes the continuity of service. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in para-3 of Gurpreet Singh's case (supra), has held as follows:- “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 that 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.” CWP No. 2788 of 2007 -4- In the light of what has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while interpreting the meaning of reinstatement in service, the contention, as raised by the counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3, cannot be accepted. Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act does deal with the discretion of the Labour Court to grant benefit regarding reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or to give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require. The workman after having been reinstated and that too on the same post, from which he was terminated, the continuity of service would follow and depriving the same would amount to break in service, which would be totally contrary to the relief of reinstatement in service. That being so, the contention as raised by the counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 cannot be accepted and is, hereby, rejected. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The award of the Labour Court dated 20.02.2006 (Annexure P-6) is modified to the extent that the workman would be entitled to reinstatement in service with continuity thereof but without back wages. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE March 02, 2009 pj