Punjab-Haryana High Court
Avtar Singh vs Po Industrial Tribunal Bathinda And Ors on 12 December, 2025
CWP-25467
25467-2014 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(202) CWP-25467-2014
Date of Decision : 12.12.2025
Avtar Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal,
Bathinda and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Present: Mr. Puneet Kumar Bansal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Pratibha Bali, AAG, Punjab.
****
KULDEEP TIWARI,
TIWARI J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner/workman, has thrown a challenge to order dated 29.01.2014 (Annexure P-1),
1), passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda,, vide which the claim of the petitioner/workman for re re-instatement instatement was declined.
declined
2. The Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 15.01.2024, 15.01.2024 had passed the hereinafter extracted order, upon the instant writ petition ::-
"Learned Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed seven times on the post of Clerk-
Clerk cum-Computer Computer Operator on contract basis (each time for 89 days). While issuing fresh appointment letter, a gap of 3-44 days was maintained by the respondent respondent-Management Management and all the seven appointment letters were issued to petitioner-workman workman fro fromm the period 25.05.2004 to 18.02.2006. However, before ending of the service period on 18.02.2006, the services of the petitioner was terminated on 23.01.2006.
1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 16-12-2025 22:54:34 ::: CWP-25467 25467-2014 2 Learned Tribunal has declined the reference against the petitioner-workman workman primarily on the grou ground nd that the appointment was on contractual basis for a specific period and thus, same is covered by Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. While challenging the said finding, learned counsel for the petitioner points out to all the zimni orders appended with the writ petition as Annexures P-2 to P-8 8 and relies upon the Division Bench judgments passed by this Court i.e. Director, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab v. Baljinder Singh and another 2006(2) S.C. T.105 and Municipal Council, Bina Nagar v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur and another 2015(1)RSJ 765:2014 (70) R.C.R. (Civil) 119 119. However, while addressing his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner-workman workman submits that during the pendency of the present writ petition, petitioner-workman workman has crossed the age of superannuation. Thus, in the eventuality of an observation that the termination of the petitioner petitioner-workman workman is in violation of Section 25-F F of the Industrial Disputes Act, his interest can be looked after by making payments of lump-sum sum amount of the compensation.
Learned State counsel seeks some time to confirm the appointment letters referred by the petitioner petitioner-workman.
Adjourned to 30.01.2024.
30.01.2024."
3. In deference to the directions (supra), ttoday, oday, learned counsel for the State, on instructions imparted to her from the quarter concerned, apprises this Court that the petitioner/workman worked intermittently for about one and half year (i.e. for 89 days each time), with a gap of one day every tim time.
4. On the other hand, learned couns counsel el for the respondent/State, respondent/State submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the there re is infraction of Section 25(F) 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. She, e, further admitted 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 16-12-2025 22:54:35 ::: CWP-25467 25467-2014 3 the fact that the petitioner/workman, petitioner/workman, has worked for one and a half year, intermittently, and his services were terminated, way back in the year 20 2006 06, therefore, the learned Tribunal concerned, has rightly not passed the award regarding re-instatement re instatement of the petitioner/workman, an and no compensation was awarded to him.
5. This Court has considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties concerned, and has gone through the available record.
6. It is trite law that in case, termination of services of work workman man was found to be illegal, on account account of infraction of Section 25(F 25(F)) of the ID Act, the re-instatement instatement is not automatic. The Court is required to take into consideration all the facts and circumstances of each case, before passing the order of re-instatement.
instatement. Reference, in this regard, can be made to the judgment delivered d by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.13834 of 2024, 2024 titled 'Maharashtra Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs. Mahadeo Krishna Naik', decided on 14.02.2025.
7. On the anvil of above legal pro propositions, positions, this Court has also examined the instant case. The services of the petitioner were terminated, way back in the year 2006, 20 and he has worked only for one and half year,, therefore, this Court, is of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal concerned, has rightly not passed the award regard regarding re-instatement instatement of the petitioner/workman. The Division Bench of this Court in LPA-1203-2021 2021, titled 'Sukhbir Singh versus State of Punjab and others' decided on 01.03.2023, has already held that the workman in entitled for Rs.50,000/- for each completed year. Further, this aspect has been considered, and the compensation was enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/ Rs.1,00,000/-, for each completed year, by the 3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 16-12-2025 22:54:35 ::: CWP-25467 25467-2014 4 Coordinate Bench of this Court in the judgment passed in CWP No.11057 of 2001, titled 'State of Haryana vs. Surjeett and another another' decided on 30.07.2025.
30.07.2025 Therefore, in view of the above, this Court, modifies the impugned award, to the extent, that the petitioner/workman is entitled for lump sum compensation to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-, Rs. , which shall be paid to him,, within a period of three months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
8. Consequently, the instant writ petition is disposed of.
(KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE December 12, 1 2025 Manpreet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No 4 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 16-12-2025 22:54:35 :::