IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

226 Decided on :30.04.2025 PREM NARAYAN . .Petitioner VERSUS PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL LUDHIANA &

ANR.

. . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI PRESENT: Mr. Ravi Gakhar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vivek Dahiya, Advocate for Dr. Puneet Kaur Sekhon, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)

1.. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned award dated 05.04.2016 (Annexure P-3), by which, the claim of the petitioner that his services were terminated by the respondents-department by violating the provisions of the Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (herein after referred to as ‘The 1947 Act’) has not been accepted by the labour Court and no retrenchment compensation was given to the petitioner, and rather, the case of the petitioner has been treated by the labour Court under Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the 1947 Act, which findings of the labour Court is incorrect in the facts and circumstances of present case.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that provisions of Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the 1947 Act can only be made applicable keeping in v