IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA-3773-2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 18.05.2026 KARAMBEER ....Appellant(s)

Versus CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS .....Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI Present: Mr. Amar Vivek Aggarwal, Advocate and Ms. Sanchi Bindra, Advocate, for the appellant.

****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI , J. (Oral)

CM-9288-LPA-2025 The present application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 17 days in filing of the present Letters Patent Appeal.

For the reasons recorded in the application, the same is allowed.

The delay of 17 days in filing the present Letters Patent Appeal. is hereby condoned. Main case

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed assailing the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dated 06.08.2025 in CWP No.3819 of 1999.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the appellant was appointed to the post of Mali on daily wages by the respondent-Management on 01.12.1986. He worked for about three years and his services were terminated on 01.01.1990. He submitted that the appellantwas engaged on a temporary muster roll as a daily wager and thereafter he was illegally terminated by the respondent-Management. He submitted that the appellant served a demand notice on 22.06.1990 and thereafter, on reference being made under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, an award was passed by answering the reference in favour of the appellant vide order dated 07.08.1998. The aforesaid award was passed because there was an infringement of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, as the termination/retrenchment was illegal and therefore, the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Gurugram directed that the appellant be reinstated with continuity of service with full back wages from the date of demand notice i.e. 22.06.1990 and in this way, the reference was answered in favour of the appellant/workman. The aforesaid award was challenged by the respondent-Management by filing a writ petition, which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 06.08.2025. While referring to the aforesaid judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, learned counsel submitted that although in the prayer clause the award itself was challenged by the respondent Management but the award has not been set aside by the learned Single Judge and the appellant was therefore entitled for grant of full back wages. He further submitted that the appellant had rather worked till the year 2017 regarding which an affidavit was also filed but the same was not properly considered by the learned Single Judge and on the basis of the affidavit filed by the Management that he had not worked till the year 2017, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by observing that the appellant is entitled for compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- since he had worked with the respondent/Management for three years on the basis of a formula of Rs. 50,000/- per year, based upon a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Sukhbir Singh versus State of Haryana and others, LPA No.1203 of 2021, decided on 01.03.2023. He submitted that the learned Single Judge ought not to have granted compensation in lieu of his reinstatement since his termination/retrenchment was illegal, even as per the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court.

3. Learned counsel also referred to a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. Bhurumal (2014) 7 SCC 177 and contended that even the compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- was on the lower side.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

5. Admittedly, the appellant had worked with the respondent /Management for about three years i.e. from 01.12.1986 to 01.12,1989 and his services were thereafter terminated. Learned Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court on th