Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vinay Mehta vs Municipal Council Pathankot Thr ... on 12 March, 2025
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037126
CWP-6488-2016 & connected cases -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
227 (06 cases) CWP-6488-2016
Date of Decision :12.03.2025
Jaswinder Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Municipal Council (Now Corporation),
Pathankot and another ...Respondents
CWP-6489-2016
Jaswinder Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Municipal Council (Now Corporation),
Pathankot and another ...Respondents
CWP-6490-2016
Ashish Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
Municipal Council (Now Corporation),
Pathankot and another ...Respondents
CWP-6491-2016
Vinay Mehta ...Petitioner
Versus
Municipal Council (Now Corporation),
Pathankot and another ...Respondents
1 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 19-03-2025 22:12:16 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037126
CWP-6488-2016 & connected cases -2-
CWP-6492-2016
Ramesh Kumar
...Petitioner
Versus
Municipal Council (Now Corporation),
Pathankot and another ...Respondents
CWP-7186-2016
Rakesh Kaul ...Petitioner
Versus
Municipal Council (Now Corporation),
Pathankot and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Advocate with Ms. Neha Jain, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in all petitions.
Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate with Mr. Sarthak Soni, Advocate
for respondent-Municipal Council in all petitions.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)
1. In the present bunch of petitions, though, the challenge is to the
award(s) passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Gurdaspur and
for the sake of convenience, award dated 09.12.2015 (Annexure P/9),
challenged in CWP-6488-2016 is taken up for consideration. The grievance
of the petitioner(s) is that they should have been granted the benefit of
regularization in service after their services were found to be terminated in
violation of provisions of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 by Labour Court in
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037126
CWP-6488-2016 & connected cases -3-
its impugned award but learned counsel for the petitioner(s) on instructions
from the petitioner(s), who are present in Court, submits that the
petitioner(s) will be satisfied in case, the compensation in lieu of
reinstatement is granted to them in accordance with the settled principle of
law as it exits as of now.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) further submits that as per
the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.1203-2021 titled as
Sukhbir Singh vs. State of Haryana and others decided on 01.03.2023
wherein, by taking into consideration the relevant provisions of law, for the
each completed year, a sum of Rs.50,000/- has been awarded as
compensation whereas, in the present case, the petitioner(s), who have
completed more than 06 years in service with the respondents have only
been granted a sum of Rs.20,000/- for a completed year as compensation
by the Tribunal vide its impugned award, which is arbitrary and illegal.
Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that the petitioner(s) be granted
compensation at least as per the settled principle of law settled by the
Division Bench of this Court in Sukhbir Singh (supra).
3. Learned counsel for the respondent-Municipal Council submits
that against the similar order passed, the similarly situated employees had
approached this Court wherein, while passing order dated 19.11.2015 in
LPA No.2078 of 2014 titled as, Sunil Kumar vs. Presiding Officer and
others , the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was enhanced from
Rs.20,000/- to Rs.30,000/-, which may also be granted in favour of the
petitioner(s) in the present petitions.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that as per the
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037126
CWP-6488-2016 & connected cases -4-
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Sukhbir Singh (supra), the
compensation to tune of Rs.50,000/- has been fixed for each completed year
which should be taken into consideration while granting compensation in
favour of the petitioner(s) in the present petitions.
5. Learned counsel for respondent-Municipal Council submits that
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was enhanced form Rs.20,000/-
to Rs.30,000/- in the case of other similarly situated employees by the
Division Bench while passing order dated 19.11.2015 in LPA No.2078 of
2014 titled as Sunil Kumar vs. Presiding Officer and others whereas, the
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner(s) is that in the latest
judgment in Sukhbir Singh (supra,), the Division Bench of this Court after
considering the relevant laws of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, fixed
the compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for each completed year and the
petitioners(s) be granted compensation as per the judgment in Sukhbir
Singh (supra,).
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
7. The contention which has been raised before this Court is that
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the tune of Rs.20,000/- for
each completed year in favour of the petitioner(s) should be enhanced to
Rs.50,000/- as per the settled principle of law settled in Sukhbir Singh
(supra).
8. This Court is to see the welfare of the employees. Though, on
an earlier occasion, in the case of similarly situated employees, the
compensation was enhanced by this Court from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.30,000/-
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037126
CWP-6488-2016 & connected cases -5-
for each completed year but as of now, keeping in view the settled principle
of law settled by Division bench of this Court in Sukhbir Singh (supra), the
fixed compensation is Rs.50,000/- for each completed year. Hence, keeping
in view the settled principle of law, settled by the Division bench of this
Court in Sukhbir Singh (supra), the award of the Labour Court in all the
petitions is modified with the modification that the petitioner(s) will be
entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for each completed year
instead of Rs.20,000/- as directed by the Tribunal and the rest of the terms
and conditions of the impugned award(s) will remain the same.
9. Let the present order be complied with within a period of 08
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
10. Present petitions are disposed of in above terms.
11. Civil miscellaneous application pending, if any is also disposed
of.
12. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected
cases.
March 12, 2025 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
aarti JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
5 of 5
