##PAGE1##

LPA-2952-2025 (O&M) 1

124

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

LPA-2952-2025 (O&M)

Shiv Kumar (since deceased) through his LRs ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Secretary cum-Executive Officer, Market

Committee and others ...Respondent(s)

1. Date when Order was reserved 16.03.2026

2. Date of Pronouncement of Order 24.04.2026

3. Date of uploading order 28.04.2026

4. Whether operative part or full Full

order is pronounced

5. Delay, if any, in pronouncing of Not Applicable

full order, and reasons thereof

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA

Present: Mr. Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate and

Mr. Harshit Kataria, Advocate for the appellant(s).

***

SUVIR SEHGAL, J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed assailing judgment dated

24.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby writ petition filed by

management-respondent No.1 has been accepted and award dated 09.05.2003,

Annexure P-2, passed by the Labour Court has been set aside.

2. Mr. Ashwani Bakshi, counsel for the workman-appellant has

argued that there was no evidence before the learned Single Judge to come to

the conclusion that retrenchment compensation was offered to the workman

VANITA

2026.04.28 10:20

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order and

judgment

LPA-2952-2025 (O&M) 2

along with retrenchment notice dated 10.01.1992. He asserts that there is a

violation of Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’)

and workman is entitled to be reinstatement, along with all consequential

benefits and salary. He has contended that a mere offer to pay compensation

along with notice is not sufficient compliance of Section 25-F of the Act.

Reliance has been placed by him upon Anoop Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer

Public Health Division No.1, Panipat (Haryana), Mani Ram Vs. The

Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala, 1996 (2) PLR 39 and Nar Singh

Pal Vs. Union of India, 2000 (3) SCC 588.

3. We have heard counsel for the appellant(s) and considered his

submission besides examining the documents relied upon by him.

4. Workman was employed as Electrician-cum-Plumber with Market

Committee, Gurugram, but as the post was not sanctioned in the budget year

1985-86, he was given a fresh appointment as a Waterman against a vacant

post w.e.f. 01.01.1986. Due to financial crunch, Market Committee abolished

the post and the workman was served with a notice dated 07.06.1991 and

subsequently by letter dated 12.06.1991, he was informed that he is being

retrenched w.e.f. 20.07.1991. Workman approached the Civil Court and was

granted an injunction. Upon the vacation of the interim order, his services were

retrenched vide letter dated 01.10.1992 (Ex. M-6) on account of the abolition

of the post. Along with the retrenchment letter, he was offered a retrenchment

compensation of Rs.3,690/- and was asked to receive the amount prior to

leaving the office. A perusal of the retrenchment notice shows that he refused

to accept the notice and the retrenchment compensation was sent to him by

money order, Ex. M-7. Receipts, acknowledging receipt of payment of

VANITA

2026.04.28 10:20

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order and

judgment

LPA-2952-2025 (O&M) 3

retrenchment compensation through money order have been brought on the

record before the Labour Court as Ex. M-8.

5. The sole question to be determined is whether an offer of

compensation along with the retrenchment letter is a sufficient compliance of

Section 25-F of the Act. Section 25-F, ibid, does not provide any mode or

manner of payment of retrenchment compensation. The only requirement is

that compensation as per the formula specified in the statute must be paid at the

time of retrenchment. A perusal of the retrenchment notice clearly shows that

the workman was asked to collect the retrenchment compensation from the

office, but he neither accepted the retrenchment notice nor did he collect the

compensation which was later sent to him through postal service. In this

background, this Court is of the view tha