113 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 18-03-2025 PARAMJEET KUMAR ........Petitioner VERSUS THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BATHINDA AND OTHERS ........Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present: Mr. Arshnoor Singh Chugh, Advocate for the petitioner.

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral)

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the award passed by the Labour Court dated 24.01.2025, copy of which has been appended as Annexure P-6 by which, the claim raised by the petitioner is with regard to the termination of his services by the respondents vide order dated

19.12.1997 (Annexure P-3) has been rejected.

2. Certain facts may be noticed for the correct appreciation of the issue in hand.

3. The petitioner-Workman was working as a Chowkidar in the office of Excise and Taxation, Kotkapura since October, 1993. On 08.05.1995, the petitioner-Workman was appointed as a Peon and he continued working as such when his services were terminated by the respondent on 14.08.1997 (Annexure P-3). The said order was challenged by the petitioner-Workman by filing CWP No.12766 of 1997 and the same was allowed vide order dated 20.10.1997 stipulating therein that as the said order of termination dated 14.08.1997 has been passed without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner-Workman therefore, appropriate order be passed by the respondents by giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-Workman.

4. Thereafter, in accordance to the order of this Court, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner-Workman on 03.12.1997 and petitioner-Workman filed a reply to the said show cause notice on 15.12.1997 and ultimately an order was passed by the respondents terminating his services on 19.12.1997 (Annexure P-3). The said order of termination was not challenged by the petitioner-Workman for a period of two decades and the demand notice was raised in the year 2018 qua the order dated 19.12.1997 (Annexure P-3). The challenge against the order dated 19.12.1997 (Annexure P-3) has been raised on the ground that opportunity of personal hearing was not granted the petitioner-Workman, which is contrary to the direction given by this Court while passing order dated 20.10.1997 in CWP No.12766 of 1997 hence, the termination order dated 19.12.1997 (Annexure P-3) passed by the respondents is bad in law.

5. After appreciating the facts as well as evidence brought on record, reference raised by petitioner-Workman has been rejected by the Labour Court, which award dated 24.01.2025 (Annexure P-6) is under challenge before this Court.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner- Workman submits that though concededly there is an inordinate delay of two decades in raising the demand against the order terminating the services of the petitioner-Workman dated 19.12.1997 (Annexure P-3) but, the same cannot be a ground to deny the benefit qua the illegal termination of the petitioner-Workman from his service as, the order of termination dated 19.12.1997 (Annexure P-3) was passed without giving opportunity of “personal hearing” to the petitioner-Workman, as was directed by this Court vide order dated 20.10.1997 under CWP No.12766 of 1997.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the present case with his able assistance.

8. Qua the said argument, it may be noticed that initially the order of termination of services of the petitioner-Workman passed on 14.08.1997 (Annexure P-3) was set aside on 20.10.1997 by the Division Bench of this Court while passing order in CWP No.12766 of 1997. The ground raised was that without any reason or giving any opportunity to show cause, the order of termination dated 19.12.1997 (Annexure P-3) has been passed and the Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 20.10.1997 held that the respondents are at a liberty to pass an appropriate order after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitio