IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision :04.02.2025 Vinay Gupta ...Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patiala and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present: Mr. Raj Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mukul Aggarwal, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4.

* * *

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

1. In the present petition, challenge is against the award dated 02.09.2013 (Annexure P/8) passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patiala on the ground that the compensation awarded is inadequate in contrast to the length of service rendered by the petitioner-Workman

2. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Tribunal while adjudicating upon the issue has kept in view the totality of circumstances and the evidence which have come on record and as such, the compensation has already been awarded by the Tribunal hence, the plea that the same is inadequate, may kindly be rejected.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

4. The question as to how the compensation should be assessed in view of the reinstatement, is no longer res integra. The Division Bench of this Court while passing order in LPA No.1326-2023 titled as Pardeep Kumar Sharma vs. Commissioner and Secretary to Govt. Of Haryana and others, decided on 09.04.2024 held as under:-

20. The Apex Court has laid down the principles that instead of reinstatement, compensation should be awarded. Reference can be made to the judgments wherein, the said principle was laid down. Reliance can be placed upon the judgment in Incharge Officer and another vs. Shankar Shetty, (2010) 9 SCC 126 wherein, Rs.1,00,000/- was granted as compensation for 7 years of service. The Apex Court had relied upon Jagbir Singh vs. Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, (2009) 15 SCC 327 and other precedents to hold that a daily wager who had worked intermittently about 25 years back was entitled for the said compensation. In Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd vs. Man Singh, (2012) 1 SCC 558, the workman had put in service during the year 1984-85 and the industrial dispute had been raised after 5 years and, thus, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was awarded as compensation by setting LPA-1326-2023 (O & M) 10 aside the award of reinstatement which had been awarded by the Courts below. In Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation and another vs. Gitam Singh, (2013) 5 SCC 136, a sum of Rs.50,000/- had been granted keeping in view the fact that the workman had only worked for a period of 8 months as a daily wager. The said view was followed in BSNL vs. Bhurumal, (2014) 7 SCC 177 wherein, it was held that the claim was that he had worked for 15 years from 1987 to 2002 and resulantly, reinstatement was not granted but compensation was granted of Rs.3,00,000/- by keeping in view the facts that termination took place more than 11 years back. The Full Bench of this Court in Municipal Council, Dina Nagar, Tehsil & District, Gurdaspur vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur and another, 2015 (1) PLR 465, authored by one of us i.e G.S. Sandhawalia, J., on the reference made, which was decided by keeping the following three questions in mind:-

“(i) Whether the principles laid down in State of Karnataka and others vs. Uma Devi and others (2006) 4 SCC 1 relating to appointment to public service would be applicable while considering reinstatement under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? ii) Whether the failure to fill up the public posts in accordance with the relevant statutory Recruitment Rules disentitles a workman for reinstatement?

(iii) Whether a workman can be paid compensation for wrongful termination effected in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in lieu of reinstatement?

21. In the said case the workman was appointed as a Clerk. After examining all the judgments of the Apex Court in detail, it was held that the