(1.) In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 19.05.1995 passed by the Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh (Annexure P-1), wherein the workman was directed to be reinstated in service but has been held not entitled to back wages but continuity of service with effect from the date of demand notice.
(2.) The said award has been impugned by the workman on two counts i.e. with regard to the claim of back wages and with regard to the observation of the Court that he would be granted continuity of service with effect from the date of demand notice. At the time when the case initially came up for hearing, counsel for the petitioner had not pressed the claim for back wages and notice of motion was only issued with regard to the claim of continuity of service.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that once the Labour Court has directed the reinstatement of the workman in service holding the order of termination of the workman being not in accordance with law and further stating that the workman would be entitled to continuity of service but with effect from the date of demand notice, the words 'entitled to continuity of service' lose their significance as it is qualified from the date of demand notice. If the workman is to be held entitled to reinstatement from the date of demand notice, there can be no continuity of service. On this basis, he submits that the impugned award, limited to this extent, cannot be sustained and the workman would be entitled to reinstatement in service with continuity thereof. For this contention, he relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2003 2 SCT 226, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that once the direction is issued to reinstate an employee in service on setting aside of the order of termination, it cannot be said to be a case of fresh appointment and, therefore, the employee would be entitled to continuity of service.