IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: 05.04.2025 MANAGING DIRECTOR PUNJAB STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. ............Petitioners VERSUS PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL BATHINDA AND ANR ........Respondents

208-1 CWP-15759-2019(O&M)

PUNJAB STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND ORS. ............Petitioners VERSUS THAMAN BAHADUR AND ANR ..........Respondents

208-2 CWP NO.18330-2019(O&M)

PUNJAB STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR. ............Petitioners VERSUS PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND ANR ..............Respondents

208-3 CWP NO.28267-2019(O&M)

PUNJAB STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. ............Petitioners VERSUS PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND ANR. ..............Respondents

208-4 CWP NO.28521-2019(O&M)

PUNJAB STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. ............Petitioners VERSUS PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND ANR. ..............Respondents

208-5 CWP NO.19803-2019(O&M)

MANAGING DIRECTOR PUNJAB STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR. ............Petitioners VERSUS PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL BATHINDA AND ANR. ..............Respondents CORAM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present Mr.Amanpreet (A.P) Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners in CWP-15759-2019.

Mr. Manvir Singh Batth, Advocate, for the petitioners in CWP-14617-2019 Mr. S.S.Bedi, Advocate, for the petitioners in CWP Nos.18330 and 28521 of 2019.

Mr. Vikas Arora Advocate, for petitioners in CWP-28267-2019.

Mr. Parambir Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners in CWP-19803-2019.

Mr. Vinay Bajaj, Advocate, for respondent no.1 in CWP-15759-2019.

Mr. Tarun Singla, Advocate, for respondent no.2 in CWP-14617, 18330, 19803 and 28267 of 2019 and for respondent no.4 in CWP-14617, 18330, 19803, 28267 of 2019.

***

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J (ORAL)

1. In the present bunch of petitions, the challenge is to the Award dated 16.01.2019 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Labour Court, by which, the workmen have been granted the benefit of reinstatement in service with continuity and 50% back wages.

2. Certain facts are being noticed for the correct appreciation of the issue in hand. For the purpose of the present order, the facts are being taken up from CWP No. 14617 of 2019. In the said writ petition, the respondent-workman was appointed as a helper on 15.09.1997. He continued work till his services were terminated in December 2000. The workman did not initiate any action against the petitioner- Department until 22.03.2012 when a claim petition was filed. The said claim was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication and ultimately the impugned Award dated 16.01.2019 (Annexure P-6) was passed wherein, the termination of the services of the workman by the petitioner-Department was held to be bad on the ground that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in service before termination of their services and requirements of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 1947 Act) was not complied with by the petitioner- Department. That a similar award has also been passed in the case of other workmen by the Labour Court, wherein, their termination from service has been held to be bad and the benefit of reinstatement along with continuity in service and 50% of back wages has been awarded. The said Awards are under challenge before this Court by raising a plea that the Labour Court should not have entertained the issue after a period of 13 years as workmen did not have any explanation for not approaching the Labour Court for redressal of their grievance after one and half decade approximately. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Department relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 638 of 2000, decided on 28.01.2000, titled Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Versus K.P.Madhavankutty to contend that if a reference is made after a period of seven years, such reference is without jurisdiction of the Lab