IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 09.10.2025 Meera Shukla …Petitioner Versus Essen Deinki Pvt. Ltd. and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Ashok Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Hitender Kansal, Advocate for Mr. Chetan Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1.

****

KULDEEP TIWARI, J.(ORAL)

1. The petitioner/workman, has thrown a challenge to order dated 10.12.2024 (Annexure P-1), passed by the respondent No.2, vide which the claim of the petitioner/workman for re-instatement was declined despite, her termination from the services, were held to be illegal, and a meagre compensation of Rs.15,000/- was awarded.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once it is a positive findings by the learned Tribunal concerned, to the effect, that services of the petitioner/workman, were illegally terminated, then the learned Tribunal concerned, ought to have allowed the reference in totality, and passed the award directing re-instatement of the petitioner. He further draws the attention of this Court towards the written statement, filed by the respondent/Management, which was also considered by the learned Tribunal concerned, to the effect, that the Management has specifically took a stand that they are still ready and willing to allow the workman to rejoin her services. He finally submits that even the compensation awarded to the petitioner/workman, was inadequate, despite the fact that the petitioner has worked for 02 years and 07 months, with the respondent/Management.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/Management, submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that there is infraction of Section 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He, further admitted the fact that the petitioner/workman, has worked for 02 years and 07 months, and her services were terminated, way back in the year 2019, therefore, the learned Tribunal concerned, has rightly not passed the award regarding re-instatement of the petitioner/workman, and an adequate compensation was awarded to her.

4. This Court has considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties concerned, and has gone through the available record.

5. It is trite law that in case, termination of services of workman was found to be illegal, on account of infraction of Section 25(f) of the ID Act, the re-instatement is not automatic. The Court is required to take into consideration all the facts and circumstances of each case, before passing the order of re-instatement. Reference, in this regard, can be made to the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.13834 of 2024, titled ‘Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs. Mahadeo Krishna Naik’, decided on 14.02.2025

6. On the anvil of above legal prepositions, this Court has also examined the instant case. The services of the petitioner were terminated, way back in the year 2019, and she has worked merely for 02 years and 07 months, therefore, this Court, is of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal concerned, has rightly not passed the award regarding re-instatement of the petitioner/workman. However, the compensation awarded to the petitioner/workman, sine dubio is meagre. The petitioner/workman has more than 02 years of service in her credit. The Division Bench of this Court in LPA-1203-2021, titled ‘Sukhbir Singh versus State of Punjab and others’ decided on 01.03.2023, has already held that the workman is entitled for each preceding year, to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. This aspect has further been considered, and the compensation was enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-, for each completed year, by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the judgment passed in CWP No.11057 of 2001, titled ‘State of Haryana vs. Surjeet and another’ decided on 30.07.2025. Therefore, this Court, modifies the impugned award, to the extent, that the petitioner/workman is entitled for compensation t