IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : April 01, 2026 NAR SINGH BAHADUR -PETITIONER V/S PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT-III, FARIDABAD AND ANOTHER -RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Ms. Mansi Majoka, Advocate, and Mr. Bhisham Kumar Majoka, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Kapil Bansal, D.A.G., Haryana.

***

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

1. The present writ petition assails the award dated 23.01.2020 (Annexure P-1), whereby the Industrial Tribunal, Faridabad, despite holding that the termination of the petitioner/workman was illegal, declined to order his reinstatement and instead directed the respondent No.2/management to pay monetary compensation of ₹55,000/-.

2. Concisely and compendiously, the case set up by the workman in his demand notice dated 25.11.2014, which constituted the bedrock of the impugned award, was that he was appointed as an Electrician with the management on 10.05.2012, and his last drawn salary was ₹11,000/- per month. He alleged that he had continuously served the management from 10.05.2012 to 11.10.2014, when his services were terminated without any legal notice and without compliance with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the “I.D. Act”), and accordingly sought reinstatement with continuity of service, full back wages, and all other service benefits.

3. Learned counsel for the workman submits that the workman had served the management for approximately 2½ years, as is evident from the impugned award. Once the Industrial Tribunal acknowledged that the workman had completed 240 days of service in the preceding year and his termination was illegal, the relief of reinstatement ought to have been granted. It is further submitted that if this Court concurs with the Industrial Tribunal’s decision in denying reinstatement, the workman should, in the alternative, be awarded just and reasonable compensation in line 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. 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. Moreover, learned counsel for the workman has failed to demonstrate as to how the mere rendering of service for approximately 2½ years with the management, particularly when his appointment was not made through a proper channel, would entitle him to reinstatement. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the Industrial Tribunal has rightly declined the relief of reinstatement.

5. 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. 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.2,50,000/- on an average of Rs.50,000/- per