IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : November 11, 2025 STATE OF HARYANA -PETITIONER V/S VIJENDER AND ORS. -RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Bhupender Singh, Addl. A.G., Haryana for the petitioner.

Mr. Sandeep Singal, Advocate for the respondent No.1/workman.

***

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

1. The present writ petition assails the award dated 27.07.2001 (Annexure P-1), whereby the Labour Court, Rohtak, upon holding that the termination of services of respondent No.1/workman was in contravention of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the I.D. Act”), directed his reinstatement with continuity of service and further awarded 60% back wages from the date of the demand notice.

2. This Court, vide order dated 04.12.2002, stayed the operation of the impugned award, subject to compliance with the provisions of Section

17-B of the I.D. Act.

3. Concisely and compendiously, the case set up by respondent No.1/workman is that he was appointed by the petitioner/management as a Chowkidar on daily wage basis and had continuously served from January

1986 till 31.03.1994, when his services were terminated without any reason and in violation of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act. Consequently, he raised an industrial dispute seeking reinstatement with back wages.

4. It is not in dispute before this Court that the relief of reinstatement, as granted by the Labour Court, cannot now be extended to the workman, he having already attained the age of superannuation. Thus, the only surviving issue pertains to the award of 60% back wages.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/management contends that respondent No.1/workman was engaged on a daily wage basis and he had voluntarily abandoned his employment on 31.03.1994. It is further submitted that the workman did not complete 240 days of service in any calendar year, and therefore, he is not entitled to any relief.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1/workman submits that the workman had rendered about eight years of service, and the termination of his services, in violation of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, rightly led the Labour Court to order reinstatement with 60% back wages. However, owing to the interim stay granted by this Court, the workman could not be reinstated. Therefore, the award of 60% back wages is just and valid.

7. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Insofar as the relief of reinstatement is concerned, the same no longer survives for consideration, the workman having reached the age of superannuation.

8. The only question that remains to be determined is with regard to the quantum of compensation. In this regard, it is appropriate to refer to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP-11057-

2001, State of Haryana v. Surjeet and another, decided on 30.07.2025 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. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are as under:-

6. Resultantly, once the workman had completed 240 days and apparently had worked for a period spanning more than 5 ½ years, we are of the considered opinion that dispensing of his service before his contractual period came to an end would entitle him for the statutory protection which would be evident from the award of the Labour Court. However, keeping in view the fact that at this point of time, it would be justified to put him back in service since a period of almost 25 years has gone by and therefore, it would be just and appropriate to award compensation to the tune of Rs.2,5