IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: 22.01.2026 The Secretary to Govt of Punjab and another .........Appellants Versus Dal Bahadur and another .......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present: Mr. Aftab Singh Khara, Senior DAG, Punjab.

* * * * *

DEEPAK MANCHANDA, J.

CM-484-LPA-2026 This application is for condonation of delay of 502 days in filing the appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the matter remained under consideration at various official levels to determine whether the case was fit for filing an appeal, which resulted in the delay.

Heard.

The application for condonation of delay is vague and lacking in material particulars. No proper or sufficient explanation has been furnished to justify such an inordinate delay.

Consequently, no sufficient cause is made out for condoning the delay in filing the appeal.

However, having heard learned counsel for the appellants at some length, we deem it appropriate to consider the merits of the appeal as well.

Main case

1. Through this intra-Court appeal, the appellants have challenged the impugned judgment dated 12.07.2024, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants has been dismissed and the award dated 10.09.2015 passed by the Labour Court was upheld.

2. The brief facts emerging from the pleadings of present appeal are that the Respondent No.1–workman was initially engaged as a Peon in the Department of Management for 89 days on a temporary basis w.e.f. 22.06.1995. Thereafter, he was granted intermittent extensions and continued to serve till 06.08.1998. Subsequently, he was re-engaged as Peon on 29.04.1999 by the Chief, Homeopathic Department, Punjab and continued in service till 24.10.2003, when his services were discontinued without issuance of notice or payment of retrenchment compensation. Aggrieved by the termination, respondent No.1 raised an industrial dispute and approached the Labour Court. The Labour Court initially passed an award dated 15.02.2011 directing reinstatement, which was implemented by the appellant-State and was never challenged. Thereafter, in compliance with the order dated 23.02.2015 passed in CWP-1554-2013, the Labour Court vide modified award dated 10.09.2015 granted continuity of service along with 25% back wages to the workman. The learned Single Judge upheld the modified award of the Labour Court granting continuity of service and 25%

back wages. Aggrieved against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, the appellants-State have preferred the present intra-Court appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the engagement of respondent No.1- workman was for a fixed term (89 days) and the same had ended by efflux of time attracting Section 2(oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He further submits that the impugned judgment overlooked the binding precedents and wrongly upheld the award dated 10.09.2015 passed by the Labour Court as the same suffers from jurisdictional error and has not been adequately examined. He also submits that the impugned judgment results in heavy recurring financial liability on the State Exchequer which is contrary to law governing temporary engagements and prays for setting aside the same.

4. Heard.

5. The extracts of the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment dated 12.07.2024 are reproduced hereinbelow:-

“ This time, petitioners Management have filed the instant writ petition, challenging the findings recorded by learned Tribunal, whereby, it modified the earlier award, and apart from reinstatement in service, held the workman entitled to the benefit of continuity in service along with

25% back-wages.

8. From the record before the Court, learned State counsel-Mr.

Puru Jarewal, AAG, Punjab, is not in a position to dispute the fact that earlier award dated 15.02.2011, whereby, respondent No.1-workman was ordere