IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : October 29, 2025 PARGAT SINGH -PETITIONER V/S STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Ravi Gakhar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Pratibha Bali, A.A.G., Punjab.

***

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

1. The present writ petition challenges the award dated 09.08.2021 (Annexure P-1), whereby the Industrial Tribunal, Patiala, despite recording a categorical finding of violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the I.D. Act”), declined to grant the relief of reinstatement to the petitioner-workman and awarded only a total sum of ₹ 35,000/- as compensation, relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. v. Mamni”, 2006 (2) LLJ (SC) 744.

2. Concisely and compendiously, the petitioner-workman was appointed as Chowkidar at Mini PHC, Gajju Majra, District Patiala, on a temporary basis, at a monthly remuneration of ₹ 2,500/-. He joined service on 11.07.2011 and continued to serve until 03.08.2017, when his services were terminated by the respondent-management. Aggrieved by the termination, the workman filed a claim petition, which was subsequently converted into a reference under Sections 2-A and 10(1)(c) of the I.D. Act. The Industrial Tribunal found that the workman had completed 240 days of service in the preceding year, and that his services were terminated without issuance of a charge sheet, holding any enquiry, or payment of compensation. Consequently, while recording a violation of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, the Industrial Tribunal, by the impugned award, declined reinstatement in view of the decision in Mamni’s case (supra) and granted a total compensation of ₹ 35,000/-.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-workman contends that the workman served the respondent-department for approximately six years. Once the Industrial Tribunal acknowledged that the workman had completed 240 days of service in the preceding year, and that Section 25- F had been violated, he ought to have been considered for reinstatement. It is further submitted that, if this Court is of the view that reinstatement is not feasible, the petitioner should be awarded adequate compensation in accordance with the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in CWP-11057-2001, State of Haryana v. Surjeet and another, decided on

30.07.2025

4. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner, being a temporary employee, was discharged on 03.08.2017 due to non-availability of funds. Since his appointment was purely temporary, as a stop-gap arrangement, he cannot claim reinstatement. However, the respondent does not dispute that the petitioner may raise the issue of adequacy of compensation in light of Surjeet’s case (supra) 5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. As regards the relief of reinstatement, this Court concurs with the view of the Industrial Tribunal. The petitioner was engaged purely on a temporary basis, and the management had no further requirement for his services. Moreover, there is no allegation that any junior employee was retained after his termination. Thus, it is a case of violation of Section 25-F simpliciter, and the Industrial Tribunal rightly denied reinstatement.

6. Now, the remaining issue to be addressed pertains to the quantum of compensation. In this regard, it is appropriate to refer to the judgment rendered in Surjeet’s case (supra), wherein the workman was held entitled to lump sum compensation of ₹ 50,000/- for each completed year of service. The relevant observations are as follows:

“6. As per the settled principle of law settled by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.1203-2021 titled as Sukhbir Singh vs. State of Haryana and others decided on 01.03.2023, an employee is entitled for compensation in lieu of benefit of reinstatement in service.