Judgment B.S. Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed before this Court. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a direction to modify the impugned award (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition), whereby the petitioner has been ordered to be reinstated in service from the date of impugned award dated 17-2-2010 and not from the date of his termination from service by the employer. To that extent the impugned award has been assailed by the petitioner in the present writ petition. 3. I have perused the impugned award dated 17-2-2010 (Annexure No.4 to the writ petition). 4. The following dispute was referred for adjudication to the learned Labour Court:- Whether the termination of services of the workman Sri Yashwant Singh son of Sri Sadar Singh, daily-wager draftsman (civil) by the employers from 1-9-1998 is proper and legal? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled with its details? 5. The learned Labour Court has held in its order that the provisions of 6-N of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act 1947 read with Rule 42 were not complied with by the employer and the workman is entitled to be reinstated in service. But the learned Labour Court instead of maintaining continuity of service of the workman, directed that the workman shall be reinstated in service from the date of the impugned award, i.e. 17-2-2010. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned Labour Court has committed a manifest error of law in denying the continuity of service to the workman while setting aside the order of termination passed against the workman, therefore, the impugned award passed by the learned Labour Court is liable to be modified. 7. In my view, when it is held by the learned Labour Court that the termination of the services of workman by the employer from a particular date is illegal, the workman must be re-instated in service with continuity of service, though it is open to the learned Labour Court to pass suitable order with respect to award of back wages to the workman considering the facts and circumstances of the case. In the case at hand, the learned Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the termination of services of the workman by the employer is illegal, as provisions of Section 6-N were not complied with by the employer, but at the same time, the learned Labour Court has held that the workman shall be treated in service w.e.f. 17-2-2010. 8. Leaned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court to the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others [J.T. 2002 (1), Supreme Court, 409], wherein the Apex Court has observed inter alia in paragraph no. 3 that “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.” In that case, order denying arrears of salary was upheld by the Apex Court. 9. Following the ratio of the Apex Court verdict in the case of Gurpreet Singh (supra), the impugned award deserves to be modified. It is held that the petitioner-workman is entitled to continuity of service and it is held that the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement in service from the date of his termination i.e. 1-9-1998. 10. In view of discussion above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 11. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned award is modified to the extent that the workman-petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service from the date of his termination i.e. 1-9-1998. Rest of the award is upheld.