IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

121+345 Date of Decision: 11.02.2026.

(1) LPA-2857-2025 (O&M)

Nafis ....Appellant.

VERSUS The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Panipat and others ....Respondents.

(2) LPA-26-2025 (O&M)

Meena ....Appellant.

VERSUS The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Panipat and others ....Respondents.

(3) LPA-47-2025 (O&M)

Rajbir @ Rajbeer ....Appellant.

VERSUS The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Panipat and others ....Respondents.

(4) LPA-68-2025 (O&M)

Naveen ....Appellant.

VERSUS The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Panipat and others ....Respondents.

(5) LPA-119-2025 (O&M)

Rajesh ....Appellant.

VERSUS The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Panipat and others ....Respondents.

(6) LPA-165-2025 (O&M)

Surender ....Appellant.

VERSUS The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Panipat and others ....Respondents.

(7) LPA-3398-2024 (O&M)

Darshna ....Appellant.

VERSUS The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Panipat and others ....Respondents.

***

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA ---

Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the appellant(s).

Mr. Anant Kataria, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.

****

ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (Oral)

CM-7191-LPA-2025 IN LPA-2857-2025;CM-67-LPA-2025 IN LPA-26-2025 CM-112-LPA-2025 IN LPA-47-2025; CM-150-LPA-2025 IN LPA-68-2025 CM-165-LPA-2025 IN LPA-119-2025;CM-385-LPA-2025 IN LPA-165-2025 CM-8378-LPA-2025 IN LPA-3398-2024 Prayer in these applications is for condonation of delay of 300 days in filing the appeal bearing LPA No.2857 of 2025; 34 days in filing the appeals bearing LPA Nos.26 and 119 of 2025; 33 days in filing the appeals bearing LPA Nos.47, 68 of 2025 and LPA No.3398 of 2024; 63 days in filing appeal bearing LPA No.165 of 2025 respectively.

Learned counsel for the applicants/appellants submits that the appellants are poor persons and as their services on various Group-D posts had been terminated, they did not have the financial means to engage a counsel and file the appeal within the period of limitation.

Issue notice in the applications.

At the asking of the Court, Mr. Anant Kataria, DAG, Haryana, accepts notice of the applications.

Heard.

The applicants/appellants are stated to be poor persons. They were working as Ward Attendant/Group-D posts when their services were terminated. It would be in the interest of justice, if the delay in filing the appeals is condoned and the appeals are heard and decided on merit. Consequently, the applications are allowed and the delay in the filing appeals is condoned.

Main Appeals This judgment shall dispose of the afore-mentioned seven Letters Patent Appeals as the same have arisen from the common judgment dated 16.10.2024 passed by the Single Bench of this Court. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from LPA No.2857 of 2025.

2. The appellant has challenged the judgment of the Single Bench dated 16.10.2024, whereby the Award of the Labour Court, has been modified to the extent that instead of reinstatement with continuity in service along with 50% back wages, the appellant has been granted lump sum compensation at the rate of Rs.35,000/- for each completed year of service.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as the services of the appellant were illegally terminated, he was entitled to the benefit of reinstatement with continuity in service along with back wages.

4. Heard.

5. The appellant is stated to have been engaged through an outsourcing agency and was working as a part time Group-D employee. His services are stated to have been discontinued in 2013. He had raised an industrial dispute and the Labour Court had directed their reinstatement along with continuity of service. We are in agreement with the judgment of the Single Bench that the appellant had been engaged through an outsourcing agency and had worked on pa