228 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 04-03-2025

1. CWP-14732-2002 (O&M)

SONEPAT COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILL LTD, SONEPAT THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR ........Petitioner VERSUS THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT, PANIPAT AND ANR.

........Respondent(s)

2. CWP-14733-2002 (O&M)

SONEPAT COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILL LTD, SONEPAT THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR ........Petitioner VERSUS THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT, PANIPAT AND ANR.

........Respondent(s)

3. CWP-14734-2002 (O&M)

SONEPAT COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILL LTD, SONEPAT THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR ........Petitioner VERSUS THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT, PANIPAT AND ANR.

........Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present: Mr. B.S Patwalia, Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Masih, Advocate for the petitioner in all the cases.

Mr. R.K Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ankur Sheoran, Advocate For the respondents in all the cases.

***

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral)

1. Present bunch of three writ petitions involve common question of law in the context of common set of facts and thus they are being decided by a common order.

2. In the present bunch of petitions, the challenge is to the award dated 24.07.2002 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat, copy of which has been appended as Annexure P-8 whereby the order dated 16.09.1994 (Annexure P-4) passed by the authorities reverting the respondent-Workman from the status of regular employee to the daily- wage employee has been treated to be the order of termination and after recording the finding that even after reversion, requisites of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 should have been complied with, the benefit of reinstatement to the original post of the Runners Kamdars on permanent basis has been given in favour of the respondent-Workmen along with full backwages.

3. Certain facts needs to be mentioned for the correct appreciation of the issue in hand.

4. The respondent-Workmen were working as daily-wage seasonal worker with the petitioners. Apart from the respondent-Workmen, there were other workmen who were also working and were senior but, the three workmen namely Satnarain s/o Ram Singh, Satish Chander s/o Sh. Badhe Ram and Rakesh Kumar s/o Zile Singh were made regular on the recommendation of the Commissioner, which order was challenged before this Court by one Jai Bhagwan s/o Mange Ram by filing Civil Writ Petition No.3038 of 1994. The said writ petition was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.03.1994 (Annexure P-1) directing that the grievance being raised by Jai Bhagwan qua the bringing all the three respondent-workmen on regular establishment be looked into and an appropriate order be passed.

5. Thereafter, a show case notice was issued to the respondent- Workmen on 11.05.1994 (Annexure P-2) as to why, the order bringing them on regular establishment be not withdrawn. Reply to the said show cause notice was submitted by the respondent-Workmen and thereafter, even the opportunity of personal hearing was granted. After hearing all the parties, the Managing Director vide order dated 16.09.1994 came to the conclusion that the services of the respondent-Workmen were wrongly brought on regular establishment ignoring the claim of all other employees who were senior and while granting them the benefit of being a regular employee, pick and choose method was adopted without considering the claim of all other eligible employees and no criteria was followed to grant benefit of regularisation to the respondent-Workmen. By the said order, the order issued in favour of the respondent-Workmen dated 04.02.1992 and 25.05.1992 granting them status of regular employee were cancelled and the respondent-Workmen were to be treated on the daily-wage as Runners Kamdars and their seniority in the daily wage cadre was maintained from the date they initially joined as such.

6.