IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Date of Decision: 19.01.2026.

Bhira Ram ....Appellant.

VERSUS State of Haryana and another ....Respondents.

***

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

Present: Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate and Ms. Shivani Mishra, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Anant Kataria, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.

***

ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (Oral)

CM-7551-LPA-2025 This application is for condonation of delay of 09 days in re-

filing the appeal.

Heard.

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 09 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.

Main Appeal The appellant has challenged the judgment of the Single Bench dated 22.07.2025, whereby the writ petition preferred by respondent No.1 against the award of the Labour Court was partly allowed and instead of reinstatement, an amount of Rs.1 lakh has been ordered to be paid to the appellant as lump sum compensation.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as services of the appellant have been illegally terminated, he ought to have been reinstated in service as directed by the Labour Court. In the alternative, he submits that as the appellant had worked for more than 2½ years, he ought to have been adequately compensated and the amount of Rs.1 lakh, as directed by the Single Bench, is meager and needs to be enhanced.

3. Heard.

4. It is the case of the appellant that he had worked as ‘Chowkidar’ with respondent No.1 from 02.05.1993 till 31.10.1995 on daily wages basis and his services were terminated stating that his services were no longer required. The appellant challenged his termination before the Labour Court and by its order dated 14.06.2000, the Labour Court had allowed his claim holding termination of his services as illegal. The Labour Court had further directed his reinstatement with continuity of service along with full back wages.

5. Aggrieved thereagainst, respondent No.1 had preferred writ petition which has been partly allowed in favour of respondent No.1 and the appellant has been awarded lump sum compensation of Rs.1 lakh instead of reinstatement. We are in agreement with the judgment of the Single Bench that as the appellant was not working on regular basis or towards a regular post to entitle him the benefit of reinstatement. Therefore, instead of extending the benefit of reinstatement, the appellant has been adequately compensated by payment of lump sum amount of Rs.1 lakh.

6. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. Bhurumal, (2014) 7 SCC 177 that it is not necessary to direct reinstatement of the workman even if termination of the services is found to be in violation of the procedure laid down under the Industrial Disputes Act. The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:-

“33. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgments that the ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with full back wages, when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied mechanically in all cases. While that may be a position where services of a regular/permanent workman are terminated illegally and/or mala fide and/or by way of victimisation, unfair labour practice, etc. However, when it comes to the case of termination of a daily-wage worker and where the termination is found illegal because of a procedural defect, namely, in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is consistent in taking the view that in such cases reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and instead the workman should be given monetary compensation which will meet the ends of justice. Rationale for shifting in this direction is obvious.

34. The reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is trite law that when the termination is found to be illegal because of nonpayment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily required under Section 25-F of th