JUDGMENT

Harpreet Kaur Jeewan, J.

CM-2628-LPA-2019

By this application, the applicant-appellant seeks condonation of delay of 67 days in re-filing the appeal.

In view of the averments made in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed and the delay of 67 days in re-filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

CM-2627-LPA-2019

By this application, the applicant-appellant seeks condonation of delay of 2 days in filing the appeal.

In view of the averments made in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit of the appellant himself, the application is allowed and the delay of 2 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

LPA-1204-2019

By way of the present Letters Patent Appeal, the order dated 09.01.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP-25140-2013, titled Gurmeet Singh v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda, and others, has been assailed, whereby instead of awarding reinstatement to the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the workman'), respondents No. 2 to 4 (hereinafter referred to as 'the employer') were directed to pay a closure compensation in terms of Section 25 -FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), in addition to a sum of Rs. 30,000/- awarded as compensation by the Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal').

2. The appellant raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Tribunal for adjudication. The workman alleged that he has put in more than 5½ years of continous service with respondent No. 4 as a Driver and he was paid monthly wages as per the rates approved by the Deputy Commissioner from time to time. He worked for more than 240 days in 12 calendar months preceding the date of termination on 17.06.2003 but the employer has removed him from service without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 25 -F of the Act. The employer contested the said reference raising a preliminary objection that the workman was engaged on daily wage basis and was initially engaged by the Punjab Women and Child Development and Welfare Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the PWCDWC') and was paid out of the contingency funds. The said Corporation has been wound up by the Government vide ordinance No. 1, dated 24.01.2001. Further, it was alleged that the workman had only worked for a period of 3½ years w.e.f. 24.10.1997 to 28.02.2001.

3. The Tribunal observed that the workman has completed 240 days in 12 calendar months preceding the date of his termination. While taking into consideration that he was a daily wage employee, he was awarded compensation of Rs. 30,000/- on account of his retrenchment in violation of Section 25 -F of the Act.

4. The Award passed by the Tribunal was challenged by way of filing CWP-25140-2013. The learned Single Judge observed that since the termination was on account of the closing down of the Corporation, i.e. the PWCDWC and a closure compensation in terms of the Act was not paid, as such, the appellant was held entitled to the closure compensation under Section 25 -FFF of the Act.

5. Assailing the said findings by learned Single Judge the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is entitled for reinstatement since the others employees of PWCDWC have been absorbed by the State but the services of the appellant were wrongly terminated.

6. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the appellant was employed only on daily wage basis and on closure of the Corporation, his services could not have been continued, as such, he was not entitled to either the retrenchment compensation o