[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sandeep Kumar vs Presiding Officer And Anr on 13 January, 2026

CWP-3299
    3299-2019 (O&M)               -1-




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

                                             CWP-3299-2019 (O&M)
                                             Date of decision: 13.01.2026
                                                                 .01.2026

Sandeep Kumar                                             ....Petitioner

                                  Versus

The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal
                                  Tribunal-cum-Labour
                                               Labour Court, Gurugram
and another                                            ....Respondentss

CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

Present:     Mr. Zorawar Singh, Advocate
                                 Advocate,
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Senior Advocate, with
             Mr. Deepak Goyat, Advocate, and
             Mr. Nikhil Sehrawat, Advocate,
             for respondent No.2.

                   ****

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (Oral)

1. By way of instant writ petition filed under Articles 226/227

of the Constitution of India, an award dated 19.11.2018 (Annexure P P-4),

4),

rendered by the learned Industrial Tribunal is put to challenge, vide

which, the petitioner-workman petitioner workman was denied the relief oof reinstatement, but

was granted an amount of Rs.3,50,000/-

Rs.3,50,000/- as compensation, towards full

and final settlement.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the

learned Industrial Tribunal came to the conclusion that act of the

respondent respondent-Management nagement in terminating services of the petitioner, is

illegal, it ought to have ordered reinstatement. Further, the learned

Industrial Tribunal failed to consider the period of the service rendered

by the petitioner, while passing the impugned award. Howe However, ver, he fairly

1 of 5

CWP-3299 3299-2019 (O&M) -2-

submits that since the petitioner was terminated in the month of April,

2013, and as such, a period of around 13 years has already elapsed, he

would not press the petition qua the relief of reinstatement. Accordingly,,

he confines his prayer only to the extent that adequate compensation be

granted to the petitioner-workman, petitioner , keeping in view his length of service.

3. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel for the

respondent Management submits that FIR No.84, dated 09.02.20213, respondent-Management

under Sections 354/506 of the Indian Penal Code, and 4B/10 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 2012, was registered

against the petitioner at police Station City Gurgaon, for outraging

modesty of a minor girl. As a natural consequence, the respondent respondent--

Management was not able to repose faith in the workman. Still, three

registered letters/notices were served upon the petitioner to join the duty,

but he did not choose to. Further, he submits that as per the Certified

Standing Orders, if an employee remains remains absent for 30 days, he would be

deemed to have abandoned the job. Similar is the position in the matter at

hand. Therefore, the impugned award does not warrant any interference.

4. This Court has heard the rival submissions advanced by

learned counsel counsel for the parties and has carefully examined the record.

5. Since, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, has

submitted that he would not press the petition as regards the relief of

reinstatement, atement, therefore, the said prayer has become redundant.

Accordingly, the only issue, which requires adjudication adjudication, is qua the

compensation.

6. It is a matter of record that the learned Tribunal has

categorically observed that the respondent respondent-Management Management is responsible

2 of 5

CWP-3299 3299-2019 (O&M) -3-

for infraction of Section 25-F F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 1947.. It has

also been recorded that the Management did not comply with clause 34

of the Standing Orders, Orders, therefore, the contention raised by the learned

Senior counsel for the respondent-Management, respondent Management, in this regard, is out--

rightly rejected. Further, if, at all, the respondent respondent-Management Management is

aggrieved by the award, it has the option to assail the same, but it opted

not to. In such a situation, it can be easily fathomed that the respondent--

Management admits fault on its part as regards infraction of Section 25 25-F F

(supra).

7. Adverting to the issue of determination of quantum of

compensation, it would be appropriate to refer to the judgment rendered

by a Division Bench of o this Court in CWP-11057-2001 (State State of

Haryana v. Surjeet and another), another), decided on 30.07.2025 30.07.2025, wherein the

workman was held entitled to lump sum compensation of ₹50,000/- for

each completed year of service. The relevant observations are as

follows:-

"6. As per the settled principle of law settled by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.1203 No.1203-2021 2021 titled as Sukhbir Singh vs. State of Haryana and others decided on 01.03.2023, an employee is entitled for compensation in lieu of benefit of reinstatement ent in service. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are as under:-

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 rvice 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

3 of 5

CWP-3299 3299-2019 (O&M) -4-

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/ Rs.50,000/- per year, keeping in view the fact that the State had taken his servic servicee 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 vice was of 8 months and thus, compensation of Rs.50,000/ 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/ Rs.50,000/- had been granted. In K.V.Anil Mithra a & 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/ Rs.2,50,000/- in lieu of the reinstatement and back wages of 50% which was granted and accordingly, modified."

7. A bare perusal of the above reproduction would show that for each completed year, instead of reinstatement, a workman can be paid compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/ for each completed year. Keeping in view the fact that in the present case, responde respondent nt No.1-workman workman had worked for a period of more than 06 years, he becomes entitled for sum of Rs.3,00,000/ Rs.3,00,000/- on the said account."

8. Concededly, inn the present case, the workman had rendered

about 6 years and 3 months of service with the respondent respondent-Management..

Further, the learned Industrial Tribunal has also highlighted the violation

of Section 25-F 25 F of the Act, though, did not gr grant ant the relief of

reinstatement, but granted only 3,50,000/ 3,50,000/-,, which, in the considered

opinion of this Court, is on lower side. For, at least, an amount of

4 of 5

CWP-3299 3299-2019 (O&M) -5-

Rs.1,00,000/ for each completed year, ought to have been granted to the Rs.1,00,000/-

workman. To hold so, this Court also takes into the consideration the

decision dated 12.12.2025, rendered by this Court in CWP-2245-2001

(State of Haryana Haryana through General Manager, Haryana Roadways,