CWP-24751 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA (232) Haryana Police Housing Corporation Sat Pal Singh CORAM: Present: KULDEEP TIWARI 1. the Constitution of India, the award dated 12.07.2016 (Annexure P passed by learned Industrial Tribunal concerned, has been put to the petitioner reference under Section 10 ( short ‘the ID Act’), was answered in favour of the respondent No.1/workman and he was awarded the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages. 2. the respondent No.1/workman, was in fact, appointed through any employment exchange, or advertisement that this aspect should have been considered while granting the relief of 24751-2016 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Haryana Police Housing Corporation Versus Singh and another HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Mr. Varun Katyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manoj Tanwar, Advocate for respondent No.1/workman. **** KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL) Through the instant writ petition, cast under Article 226/22 the Constitution of India, the award dated 12.07.2016 (Annexure P passed by learned Industrial Tribunal concerned, has been put to the petitioner-Haryana Police Housing Corporation reference under Section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the ID Act’), was answered in favour of the respondent No.1/workman and he was awarded the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that appointment of the respondent No.1/workman, was in fact, appointed through any employment exchange, or advertisement, or by conducting any proper selection process. that this aspect should have been considered while granting the relief of 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-24751-2016 (O&M) Date of Decision : 23.04.2026 …Petitioner Versus ...Respondents KULDEEP TIWARI Through the instant writ petition, cast under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the award dated 12.07.2016 (Annexure P-12 passed by learned Industrial Tribunal concerned, has been put to challenge by Haryana Police Housing Corporation, wherethrough, the ) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the ID Act’), was answered in favour of the respondent No.1/workman and he was awarded the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that appointment of the respondent No.1/workman, was in fact, a back door entry and he was not appointed through any employment exchange, or by way of any or by conducting any proper selection process. He submits that this aspect should have been considered while granting the relief of 7 of 2), challenge by , wherethrough, the ) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the ID Act’), was answered in favour of the respondent No.1/workman, and he was awarded the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that appointment of back door entry and he was not any He submits that this aspect should have been considered while granting the relief of MANPREET SINGH 2026.04.28 09:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-24751 reinstatement. upon the respondent No.1/workman for misconduct. However, an opportunity of hearing was afforded to him, and only thereafter, his services were terminated in compliance of principles of nat submits that since the respondent No.1/workman, was not a regular employee, and therefore, departmental enquiry. appointment letter, of the workman, at any time without giving prior notice. 3. counsel for the petitioner. 4. Night Chowkidar in Madhuban office quintals of steel bars were stolen FIR No.71 dated 02.05.2005, under Section 379 registered, and after He was initially appointed as Chowkidar, on 02.05.1994, at Ambala, and had joined Madhuban Division on 18.06.1997 5. not granted any retrenchment compensation, and there were no allegations against the workman, that he had committed the theft. Tribunal concerned, record, with whether, he was involved in the commission of theft, or not. allegations of theft against the respondent No.1/workman, then the 24751-2016 (O&M) reinstatement. He fairly submits that no show cause notice was upon the respondent No.1/workman for misconduct. However, an opportunity of hearing was afforded to him, and only thereafter, his services were terminated in compliance of principles of nat submits that since the respondent No.1/workman, was not a regular employee, and therefore, there was no need departmental enquiry. Finally, he placed reliance upon the conditions of appointment letter, which empowers the employer, to terminate the services of the workman, at any time without giving prior notice. This Court has considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. In the instant case, the respondent No.1/workman, was posted as Night Chowkidar in Madhuban office-cum quintals of steel bars were stolen, which were FIR No.71 dated 02.05.2005, under Section 379 registered, and after an enquiry, his services were terminated on 12.07.2005 He was initially appointed as Chowkidar, on 02.05.1994, at Ambala, and had joined Madhuban Division on 18.06.1997. It is not under dispute that the r not granted any retrenchment compensation, and there were no allegations against the workman, that he had committed the theft. Tribunal concerned, the petitioner/Management, , with regard to conducting of an enquiry against the workman, whether, he was involved in the commission of theft, or not. allegations of theft against the respondent No.1/workman, then the 2 submits that no show cause notice was ever served upon the respondent No.1/workman for misconduct. However, an effective opportunity of hearing was afforded to him, and only thereafter, his services were terminated in compliance of principles of natural justice. He further submits that since the respondent No.1/workman, was not a regular there was no need to comply with the rigours of Finally, he placed reliance upon the conditions of which empowers the employer, to terminate the services of the workman, at any time without giving prior notice. This Court has considered the submissions made by learned In the instant case, the respondent No.1/workman, was posted as cum-store. During his tenure, nine , which were valued at Rs.25,000/-, and an FIR No.71 dated 02.05.2005, under Section 379 IPC, P.S. Madhuban was his services were terminated on 12.07.2005 He was initially appointed as Chowkidar, on 02.05.1994, at Ambala, and had It is not under dispute that the respondent No.1/workman, was not granted any retrenchment compensation, and there were no allegations against the workman, that he had committed the theft. Before learned /Management, has failed to produce any enquiry against the workman, as to whether, he was involved in the commission of theft, or not. If there were any allegations of theft against the respondent No.1/workman, then the served effective opportunity of hearing was afforded to him, and only thereafter, his services He further submits that since the respondent No.1/workman, was not a regular to comply with the rigours of Finally, he placed reliance upon the conditions of which empowers the employer, to terminate the services This Court has considered the submissions made by learned In the instant case, the respondent No.1/workman, was posted as During his tenure, nine , and an IPC, P.S. Madhuban was his services were terminated on 12.07.2005. He was initially appointed as Chowkidar, on 02.05.1994, at Ambala, and had espondent No.1/workman, was not granted any retrenchment compensation, and there were no allegations efore learned has failed to produce any as to If there were any allegations of theft against the respondent No.1/workman, then the MANPREET SINGH 2026.04.28 09:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-24751 petitioner/Management was under obligation to due opportunity of hearing to the respondent No.1/workman. 6. on the basis of the record, learned Tribunal has concluded that no legally sustainable termination of 25(F) of the ID Act favour of the respondent No.1/workman. 7. at this stage, this Court can consider the submissions made by learned counsel for the the termination illegal, whether the respondent No.1 the relief of reinstatement, or not. 8. misconduct on the part of the respondent No.1/workman. termination Tribunal was with efflux of time, the situation has changed, as the petitioner/Management, has challenged the award before this Court Court, vide order dated 09.11.2017, had stayed the operation of the impugned award, subject to compliance of Section 17 9. 12.07.2005, and now, more than 20 disputed that respondent No.1/workman, was not a regular employee. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the relief of reinstatement can be modified, and the claim of the 24751-2016 (O&M) petitioner/Management was under obligation to due opportunity of hearing to the respondent No.1/workman. This Court has also examined the award, in question, wherein, on the basis of the record, learned Tribunal has concluded that no legally sustainable enquiry was conducted by the petitioner/Management termination of his services. Furthermore, there is also an infraction of Section 25(F) of the ID Act, and finally, learned Tribunal favour of the respondent No.1/workman. Now the issue, which arises for consideration is, as to whether, at this stage, this Court can consider the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner/Management, to the effect, that despite declaring the termination illegal, whether the respondent No.1 the relief of reinstatement, or not. It is a case where the services were terminated on account of misconduct on the part of the respondent No.1/workman. termination order was found incorrect, the only remedy left with learned Tribunal was, to grant the reinstatement with continuity of service. with efflux of time, the situation has changed, as the petitioner/Management, has challenged the award before this Court Court, vide order dated 09.11.2017, had stayed the operation of the impugned award, subject to compliance of Section 17- The respondent No.1/workman, is out of service since , and now, more than 20 years, has passed. disputed that respondent No.1/workman, was not a regular employee. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the relief of reinstatement can be modified, and the claim of the 3 petitioner/Management was under obligation to conduct the enquiry, giving due opportunity of hearing to the respondent No.1/workman. This Court has also examined the award, in question, wherein, on the basis of the record, learned Tribunal has concluded that no legally ducted by the petitioner/Management, before Furthermore, there is also an infraction of Section learned Tribunal answered the reference ssue, which arises for consideration is, as to whether, at this stage, this Court can consider the submissions made by learned , to the effect, that despite declaring the termination illegal, whether the respondent No.1/workman can be granted It is a case where the services were terminated on account of misconduct on the part of the respondent No.1/workman. In case, the found incorrect, the only remedy left with learned to grant the reinstatement with continuity of service. However, with efflux of time, the situation has changed, as the petitioner/Management, has challenged the award before this Court, and a Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 09.11.2017, had stayed the operation of the impugned -B of the ID Act. The respondent No.1/workman, is out of service since years, has passed. Further, it is not disputed that respondent No.1/workman, was not a regular employee. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the relief of reinstatement can be modified, and the claim of the respondent conduct the enquiry, giving This Court has also examined the award, in question, wherein, on the basis of the record, learned Tribunal has concluded that no legally , before Furthermore, there is also an infraction of Section in ssue, which arises for consideration is, as to whether, at this stage, this Court can consider the submissions made by learned , to the effect, that despite declaring /workman can be granted It is a case where the services were terminated on account of In case, the found incorrect, the only remedy left with learned However, with efflux of time, the situation has changed, as the petitioner/Management, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 09.11.2017, had stayed the operation of the impugned The respondent No.1/workman, is out of service since Further, it is not disputed that respondent No.1/workman, was not a regular employee. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the relief of respondent MANPREET SINGH 2026.04.28 09:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-24751 No.1/workman, can Undisputedly, the respondent No.1/workman has worked with the petitioner/Management, for about 11 years. 10. titled ‘State of Haryana vs. quantified the lump sum compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/ completed year. The relevant is extracted hereinafter : 11. the impugned for lump sum the petitioner/Management more than 11 years, with the petitioner/Management, therefore, the claim of the respondent No.1/workman, can be satisfied by passing a direction upon petitioner/Management, to pay a lump sum compensation the respondent No.1 receipt of certified cop within the stipulat entitled for interest @ 9% 24751-2016 (O&M) No.1/workman, can be satisfied by paying a lump sum compensation to him. Undisputedly, the respondent No.1/workman has worked with the petitioner/Management, for about 11 years. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in ‘State of Haryana vs. Surjeet and another quantified the lump sum compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/ completed year. The relevant is extracted hereinafter : “7. A bare perusal of the above reproduction would show that for each completed year, instead of reinstatement, a workman can be paid compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for each completed year. Keeping in view the fact that in the present case, respondent No.1 had worked for a period of more than 06 years, he becomes entitled for sum of Rs.3,00,000/ account.” In view of the judgment (supra), this Court impugned award, to the extent, that respondent No.1 lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/-, petitioner/Management. Since the respondent No.1/workman, has worked more than 11 years, with the petitioner/Management, therefore, the claim of the respondent No.1/workman, can be satisfied by passing a direction upon petitioner/Management, to pay a lump sum compensation respondent No.1/workman, within a period of receipt of certified copy of this order. In case, the amount (supra) within the stipulated period, the respondent No.1 interest @ 9%, on the delayed payment 4 be satisfied by paying a lump sum compensation to him. Undisputedly, the respondent No.1/workman has worked with the petitioner/Management, for about 11 years. this Court in CWP No.11057 of 2001 Surjeet and another’ decided on 30.07.2025, has quantified the lump sum compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/-, for each completed year. The relevant is extracted hereinafter :- 7. A bare perusal of the above reproduction would show ted year, instead of reinstatement, a workman can be paid compensation to the tune of for each completed year. Keeping in view the fact that in the present case, respondent No.1-workman had worked for a period of more than 06 years, he entitled for sum of Rs.3,00,000/- on the said In view of the judgment (supra), this Court deem it apt to modify that respondent No.1/workman, is entitled , for each year he has worked with Since the respondent No.1/workman, has worked more than 11 years, with the petitioner/Management, therefore, the claim of the respondent No.1/workman, can be satisfied by passing a direction upon the petitioner/Management, to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-, a period of six weeks from the date of n case, the amount (supra), is not paid respondent No.1/workman, shall further , on the delayed payment. be satisfied by paying a lump sum compensation to him. Undisputedly, the respondent No.1/workman has worked with the CWP No.11057 of 2001, , has , for each 7. A bare perusal of the above reproduction would show ted year, instead of reinstatement, a workman can be paid compensation to the tune of for each completed year. Keeping in view the workman had worked for a period of more than 06 years, he on the said deem it apt to modify is entitled worked with Since the respondent No.1/workman, has worked more than 11 years, with the petitioner/Management, therefore, the claim of the , to from the date of is not paid further be MANPREET SINGH 2026.04.28 09:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-24751 12. 13. accordingly. April 23, 202 Manpreet 24751-2016 (O&M) Consequently, the instant writ petition is Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 5 Consequently, the instant writ petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stands disposed of (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stands disposed of MANPREET SINGH 2026.04.28 09:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment