Punjab-Haryana High Court
Haryana Warehousing Corporatio vs Presiding Officer on 19 February, 2025
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:026785
CWP-13819-1999 & -1-
CWP-13820-1999
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
220+221 CWP-13819-1999
Date of Decision :19.02.2025
Haryana Warehousing Corporation ...Petitioner
Versus
Presiding Officer, Labour Court & Industrial
Tribunal, Hisar and another ...Respondents
CWP-13820-1999
Haryana Warehousing Corporation ...Petitioner
Versus
Presiding Officer, Labour Court & Industrial
Tribunal, Hisar and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Lekh Raj Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner-Corporation
Mr. Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2
in CWP-13819-1999.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)
1. In the present set of petitions, challenge is to award dated
20.04.1999 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-
cum-Industrial Tribunal, Hisar by which, the termination of the services of
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:026785
CWP-13819-1999 & -2-
CWP-13820-1999
the respondents-Workmen held to be in violation of Section 25-F of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, '1947 Act') and the respondents-
Workmen were directed to be reinstated in service with continuity along
with 50% of back wages from the date of the demand notice till
reinstatement.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Corporation argues that the
respondents-Workmen were working as Chowkidar and they had only
worked for a period of 08 months hence, once, the respondents-Workmen
had only worked for a period of 08 months, the impugned order award dated
20.04.1999 (Annexure P/1) granting them the benefit of reinstatement in
service along with continuity and 50% of back wages is liable to be
modified.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Corporation further submits
that as the operation of the impugned award was stayed on 29.9.1999 and
respondents-Workmen are getting salary under Section 17-B of the 1947
Act for the last about 25 years hence, they have already been suitably
compensated qua their working with the petitioner-Corporation for a
period of 08 months.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Corporation submits that as
per the settled principle of law settled by the Division Bench of this Court in
LPA-1203-2021 titled as Sukhbir Singh vs. State of Haryana and another,
decided on 01.03.2023_in case, a Workman had worked for lesser period,
benefit of reinstatement in service should not be granted but the benefit of
compensation should be granted keeping in view the number of years an
employee has worked. Relevant paragraph of the judgment is as under:-
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:026785
CWP-13819-1999 & -3-
CWP-13820-1999
6. Resultantly, once the workman had completed
240 days and apparently had worked for a period
spanning more than 5 ½ years, we are of the
considered opinion that dispensing of his service
before his contractual period came to an end would
entitle him for the statutory protection which
would be evident from the award of the Labour
Court. However, keeping in view the fact that at
this point of time, it would be justified to put him
back in service since a period of almost 25 years
has gone by and therefore, it would be just and
appropriate to award compensation to the tune of
Rs.2,50,000/- on an average of Rs.50,000/- per
year, keeping in view the fact that the State had
taken his service for more than 5 years with the
same office in different districts.
7. The Apex Court in Haryana Urban
Development Authority Vs. Om Pal, (2007) 5
SCC 742 granted Rs.25,000/- for the service of one
year whereas in Uttaranchal Forest Development
Corporation Vs. M.C.Joshi, (2007) 9 SCC 353,
for a period of 2 years, a sum of Rs.75,000/- was
granted. Similarly, in Asst. Engineer, Rajasthan
Development Corporation & another Vs. Gitam
Singh, 2013 (1) SCR 679, the said view was
followed while noticing that the service was of 8
months and thus, compensation of Rs.50,000/- was
granted. Similarly, in Management, Hindustan
Machine Tools Ltd. Vs. Ghanshyam Sharma,
2018 (18) SCC 80, for a period of one year,
compensation of Rs.50,000/- had been granted. In
K.V.Anil Mithra & another Vs. Sree
Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit &
another, 2021 (4) SCT 415, for a period of little
over 4 years, amount awarded was Rs.2,50,000/- in
lieu of the reinstatement and backwages of 50%
which was granted and accordingly, modified.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents-Workmen submits that the
respondents-workmen had worked for 08 months but their services were
terminated in violation of provisions of 1947 Act and once, the benefit of
reinstatement in service has been granted by the Tribunal, the same be
upheld. Learned counsel for the respondents-Workmen conceded that from
the year 1999 onwards for about last 25 years, the respondents-Workmen
has been getting last drawn salary under Section 17-B of the 1947 Act.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:026785
CWP-13819-1999 & -4-
CWP-13820-1999
through the record with their able assistance.
7. It may be noticed that learned counsel for the petitioner-
Corporation has not addressed arguments upon the legality of the impugned
award dated 20.04.1999 (Annexure P/1) on merit but has only argued qua
the grant of relief of reinstatement in service to the respondents-Workmen.
8. It is a conceded position that the respondents-Workmen had
only worked for a period of 08 months hence, the grant of benefit of
reinstatement in service along with continuity and 50% back wages by the
Tribunal especially, when nothing has come on record whether the post on
which the respondent-Workmen were employed was vacant or not, is not
valid.
9. Further, as per the settled principle of law settled by the
Division Bench of this Court in Sukhbir Singh (supra), the compensation
can also be granted in lieu of reinstatement keeping in view the facts and
circumstances of a particular case.
10. In the present case, once, the respondents-Workmen only
worked for a period of 08 months with the petitioner-Corporation coupled
with the fact that they have been paid salary under Section 17-B of the 1947
Act for the last 25 years, it would be appropriate that as a full and final
settlement, a sum of Rs.1 lakh each is to be granted to the respondents-
Workmen in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. Ordered accordingly.
11. Let the present order be complied with within a period of 02
months from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which,
compensation granted will carry interest @ 6 % per annum from today.
12. Present petitions are disposed of in above terms.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:026785
CWP-13819-1999 & -5-
CWP-13820-1999
13. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected
cases.
February 19, 2025 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
aarti JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
5 of 5
