231 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-7898-2016 Date of Decision : 20.04.2026 SURAJ PARKASH .....Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present : Mr. R.K. Handa, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. D.B. Bhandari, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Kumar Goyal, Addl.A.G., Punjab.

Mr. Baljinder Singh, Advocate, for respondent no.2.

KULDEEP TIWARI, J.(Oral)

1. Through the instant petition, filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, fetching grievance from the Award dated 24.07.2014 (Annexure P-1), wherethrough, despite the reference having been answered in favour of the petitioner, while holding his termination illegal, and thereby, instead of granting reinstatement alongwith back wages, he was granted compensation of Rs.10,000/- only.

2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that once the termination of the petitioner was held to be violative of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the learned Tribunal ought to have granted the relief reinstatement, instead of awarding a meagre compensation of Rs.10,000/-.

3. He further submits that in case, this Court finds that the reinstatement was rightly declined, then the compensation which has been awarded is inadequate. Therefore, he requests for enhancement of compensation.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.2, strongly opposes the submissions, as made by learned senior counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner had worked only for one year. Although, there is a violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the petitioner does not ipso facto become entitle to reinstatement on this ground alone. He further submits that this issue has been dealt with in extenso by the learned Tribunal, which has rightly declined the relief of reinstatement. He also protects the decision of the learned Tribunal with regard to the compensation.

5. This Court has examined, the issue in hand, with the able assistance of both learned counsel for the parties.

6. In the instant case, there is no dispute regarding the fact that the petitioner had worked with the respondent no.2-management, only from 08.12.2007 to 14.01.2009. It is also not under dispute that there was a violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, prior to termination of the petitioner's services. However, this Court cannot be oblivious to the fact that the petitioner was not a regular employee, and his engagement was purely on ad hoc/temporary basis, and was not made in accordance with due process of recruitment. Further, the petitioner had worked only for about one year. All these aspects were duly examined in the correct perspective by the learned Tribunal, which rightly declined the relief of reinstatement. The relevant is extracted hereinafter: “14. However, non-compliance of the provision of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act-1947 although may lead to the grant of relief of reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service in favour of the retrenched workman, the same would not mean that such relief is be granted automatically or as a matter of course, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Mamni, 2006 (2) LLJ Page. 744 (SC). In the said case Hon'ble Supreme Court modified the impugned Award by directing that the workman shall be compensated by payment of Rs.25,000/-

instead of order of reinstatement with back wages.

15. Suraj Parkash was not the regular employee of Proper the respondent department. procedure was not followed while giving him employment. Such type of ad-hoc/temporary appointments being contrary to the provisions of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution are illegal, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs.

Uma Devi and other 2006 (2) LLJ Page. 722 (SC).

16. In the light of the above discussion, it is held that