IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 17.03.2025

109 (2 cases )

CM-3377-CWP-2025 in/and THE SECRETARY DIST RED CROSS SOCIETY, KARNAL . . .Petitioners Versus THE PRESIDING OFFICER AND ORS . . . Respondents CM-3375-CWP-2025 in/and CWP-22975-2011 (O&M)

THE SECRETARY DIST RED CROSS SOCIETY, KARNAL . . .Petitioners Versus THE PRESIDING OFFICER AND ORS . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI PRESENT: Mr. Shireesh Gupta, Advocate for the applicants-petitioners.

Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate and Mr. B.B. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 2 in CWP No. 22974 of 2011.

Mr. Chirag Wadhwa, Advocate for respondent No. 2 in CWP No. 22975 of 2011.

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral)

CM-3375-CWP-2025 &

CM-3377-CWP-2025 Present applications have been filed for recalling the order dated

05.02.2025, by which, the present writ petitions were dismissed for non-

prosecution.

Notice of the application to the counsel opposite.

Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 2 in CWP No.

22974 of 2011 and Mr. Chirag Wadhwa, Advocate for respondent No. 2 in CWP No. 22975 of 2011, accept notice on behalf of the respondent No. 2 in both cases. They raise no objection for the grant of prayer as raised in the present applications.

Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which are duly supported by an affidavit, the same are allowed.

Consequently, the order dated 05.02.2025 is recalled and the writ petitions are restored to its original number and status and on the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, the main writ petitions are taken up for hearing today itself. CWP-22974-2011 and CWP-22975-2011

1. By this common order, two writ petitions, the details of which have been given in the heading, are being disposed of as both the petitions involve the same question of law on similar facts.

2. In the present petition(s), the challenge is to the award(s) dated 29.12.2010 passed in favour of the respondent(s)-workmen by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court wherein, the termination of the services of the respondent(s)-workman has been held to be bad and the benefit of reinstatement alongwith continuity in service and benefit of back wages ranging from 25% to 50% has been granted. In the case of the respondent- workman Madhu, the benefit of reinstatement has been granted alongwith 50 % back-wages, whereas, in the case of respondent- Parveen Kumar, the benefit of reinstatement alongwith 25 % back-wages has been granted.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present petitions , the benefit of retrenchment compensation was given to the respondent(s)-workman but, the said benefit has been granted to them on the ground that their services have been wrongly terminated stating that the work of the post in question does not exist especially when, the petitioner-

institute is still working and is manufacturing artificial limbs.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there are different units working with the petitioner-Red Cross Society, which are manufacturing the artificial limbs and the same were sustaining on the basis of the reimbursement which was being done by the Social Welfare department to the artificial limbs which were being prepared.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that both the respondent-workman were working in the manufacturing of collar and backbone belts for temporary handicapped persons for which, the social welfare department has decided to stop reimbursement and keeping in view the fact that the temporary handicapped patients were not being treated any further, the services of both the petitioners were become surplus and retrenched and they were granted the retrenchment compensation and then their services were terminated.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further argues that merely that the operations of the petitioners-society are continuing and the artificial limbs are being manufactured, the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the specif