IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.21932 of 2011 Date of Decision : November 26, 2011. Kailash Nath .....Petitioner versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Triubunal-cum-Labour Court-III, Faridabad and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Rajesh Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The question before the Labour Court was “whether the petitioner abandoned the employment or he was retrenched from service?” The Labour Court, on appreciation of evidence, has come to the conclusion that it was a case where the management refused to give work to the petitioner which amounts to his retrenchment from service. Since Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was not complied with, the Labour Court has reinstated the petitioner in service with 20% back wages. The petitioner is still aggrieved as according to him, full back wages ought to have been granted to him. It is also alleged that benefit of CWP No.21932 of 2011 [2] 'continuity of service' has not been give to him. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, I am of the considered view that once the petitioner has been ordered to be 'reinstated' in service, it has to be with continuity of service. The direction given in the award is not for 'fresh employment' of the petitioner. That being so, there is no basis for the apprehension that the petitioner has been denied the benefit of continuity of service. So far as the back wages are concerned, since the petitioner is found to have been retrenched on a technical ground only, there is no justification to claim full back wages. With these clarifications, the writ petition is disposed of. November 26, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE