IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : November 11, 2025 HARYANA SEEDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.

-PETITIONER V/S PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ROHTAK AND ANR.

-RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Jai Bhagwan Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No.2.

***

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

1. The present writ petition assails the award dated 21.01.2015, whereby respondent No.1 - Industrial Tribunal, Rohtak, answered the reference in favour of respondent No.2 - workman and directed his reinstatement to his previous post with continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date of filing of the claim statement, i.e. 13.12.2012.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner - management contends that the workman was never appointed to any regular post, rather, he was engaged only as a Daily Paid Labourer (DPL) and worked merely from 15.10.2010 to 30.07.2011. It is submitted that the impugned award rests solely on the finding of violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the I.D. Act”). Accordingly, the Industrial Tribunal erred in mechanically directing reinstatement instead of considering the grant of lump-sum compensation, even if the infraction of Section 25-F was proved. The Industrial Tribunal failed to examine these aspects before issuing the impugned directions.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner - management further submits that the services of the workman were terminated in July 2011, and this Court, while issuing notice of motion on 20.03.2015, had stayed the operation of the impugned award. Therefore, now after more than 14 years, reinstatement of the workman would be neither practical nor legally justified. In support of his submissions, he relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “B.S.N.L. v. Bhurumal”, (2014) 7 SCC 177 The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:-

“22. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that likewise, even when reinstatement was ordered, it does not automatically follow full back wages should be directed to be paid to the workman. He drew our attention of this Court in the case of Coal India Ltd. Vs. Ananta Saha, (2011) 5 SCC 142 and Metropolitan Transport Corporation v. V.Venkatesan, (2009) 9 SCC

601.

23. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgments that the ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with full back wages, when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied mechanically in all cases. While that may be a position where services of a regular/permanent workman are terminated illegally and/or malafide and/or by way of victimization, unfair labour practice etc. However, when it comes to the case of termination of a daily wage worker and where the termination is found illegal because of procedural defect, namely in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is consistent in taking the view in such cases reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and instead the workman should be given monetary compensation which will meet the ends of justice. Rationale for shifting in this direction is obvious.

24. Reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is trite law that when the termination is found to be illegal because of non-payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, even after reinstatement, it is always open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment compensation. Since such a workman was working on daily wage basis and even after he is reinstated, he has no right to seek regularization (See: State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1). Thus when he cannot claim regularization and he has no right to continue even as a daily wage worker, no useful purpose is going to