IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 04.12.2025 Saroj …Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Chandigarh and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rohit Kaushik, Advocate for respondent No.2-U.T. Chandigarh.

****

KULDEEP TIWARI, J.(ORAL)

1. The petitioner/workman, has thrown a challenge to the award dated 20.05.2015 (Annexure P-3), passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal concerned, by filing the instant writ petition, cast under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, on the principle ground, that though the act and conduct of termination of services of the petitioner/workman, was found to be illegal. Despite that granting re-instatement to the petitioner/workman, she was granted a meagre compensation of Rs.45,000/-, only, by the learned Tribunal concerned.

2. Before this Court delves into in evaluating the validity of the award (supra), it is imperative to have a glimpse upon the facts of the case, qua which, there is no wrangle between the parties concerned.

3. The petitioner had applied against an advertisement in the year 1995, for the post of a part time Sweeper, and after interview, she was selected for the said post. She had joined the duty as Sweeper, in the month of May, 1995, and worked upto 03.07.2009. However, she was asked not to report for work after 13.07.2009, and no chargesheet was ever served upon the petitioner, nor any order of termination of her services was passed. Fetching grievance from the act of the respondent, the petitioner filed a demand notice dated 05.08.2009 (Annexure P-1), upon which, a reference was made on 19.04.2010, to the Labour Court concerned, to adjudicate the issue, as to whether, the services of the petitioner/workman, were terminated illegally by the Deputy Commissioner, U.T. Chandigarh (respondent No.2).

If so, to what relief the petitioner is entitled?

4. Learned Tribunal concerned finds that the services of the petitioner/workman were terminated illegally, as it is a positive case of the respondent/Management that she has refused to clean the office of Additional Deputy Commissioner, U.T. Chandigarh, and therefore, she was asked not to report for work, w.e.f. 03.07.2009, without there being initiation of any departmental proceedings, or passing of any order of termination of her services.

5. Now the issue, which arises for consideration before this Court is, as to whether, the petitioner was entitled for re-instatement, as prayed for, and, if at all, she is not entitled for re-instatement, the compensation so awarded to the petitioner, is adequate or not.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would not wish to address the issue, with regard to re-instatement, considering the lapse of time, as her services were terminated way back in the year 2009, and therefore, he would address the arguments, only with regard to the compensation awarded to the petitioner/workman, is adequate or not. He has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court, in CWP-11057-2001, titled ‘State of Haryana versus Surjeet and another’ decided on 30.07.2025, wherein, the workman was held entitled to lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/-, for each completed year of service.

The relevant observation is extracted hereinafter :-

“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 p