CWP-18653-2016, CWP-18663-2016 and CWP-18707-2016 -1- 223 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) CWP-18653-2016 Date of decision: September 03, 2026 Jarnail Singh ...Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer cum Industrial Tribunal & Labour Court, U.T., Sector-18, Chandigarh and another ...Respondents (2) CWP-18663-2016 Nachhatar Singh ...Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer cum Industrial Tribunal & Labour Court, U.T., Sector-18, Chandigarh and another ...Respondents (3) CWP-18707-2016 Bhajan Singh ...Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer cum Industrial Tribunal & Labour Court, U.T., Sector-18, Chandigarh and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Amit Kaith, Advocate. for the petitioner (in all cases). Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2- U.T. Chandigarh (in all cases) **** KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. Since common questions of law and facts arise for consideration in all the three writ petitions filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the same are being taken up together and are being decided by this ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.09.11 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP-18653-2016, CWP-18663-2016 and CWP-18707-2016 -2- common judgment. For the sake of convenience, facts are being noticed from CWP-18653-2016. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of award dated 21.04.2015 (published on 07.07.2015) (Annexure P-1) to the extend whereby the petitioner has been denied full back wages from the date of illegal termination till passing of the award. A further prayer is also made to direct the respondent No.2 to pay full back wages to the petitioner from the date of his illegal termination till the passing of the award. 3. As per the pleaded case, the petitioner was engaged as a Driver on 14.12.1998 initially for a period of 89 days, which engagement was extended from time to time. His services came to be terminated with effect from 30.05.2007. The case of the petitioner before the learned Tribunal was that his services had been terminated without notice, charge-sheet or enquiry and without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act'). An industrial dispute was consequently raised. 4. The learned Tribunal, after considering the pleadings and evidence led by the parties, found the termination of the petitioner to be illegal and directed his reinstatement with continuity of service. However, while granting the relief of reinstatement, the learned Tribunal restricted the back wages to 25%. The grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is confined to denial of the remaining 75% back wages. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that once the learned Tribunal had found the termination to be illegal and it had also come on record that persons had subsequently been recruited in place of the petitioners, the denial of 75% back wages is unsustainable. It is submitted ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.09.11 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP-18653-2016, CWP-18663-2016 and CWP-18707-2016 -3- that the petitioners had asserted that they remained unemployed during the intervening period and the management failed to establish that they were gainfully employed elsewhere. It is further submitted that similarly situated workmen had been granted 50% back wages and the petitioners are also entitled to the same relief. 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-management, on the other hand, supports the impugned award and submits that back wages do not follow automatically upon a finding that the termination is illegal. The question of back wages, according to learned counsel, has to be determined having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case, including the nature of engagement of the workman. It is further submitted that the petitioners were contractual employees and, therefore, the learned Tribunal was justified in moulding the relief. As regards the plea of parity with other workmen, it is submitted that the matter relating to grant of 50% back wages to similarly situated workmen is itself subject matter of LPA Nos.1315 to 1324 of 2014. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned award as well as the paper book. 8. At the outset, it is required to be noticed that while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India over an award passed by the Labour Court/Tribunal, this Court does not sit as a Court of appeal. The findings recorded by the Labour Court are not to be re-appreciated merely because another view may be possible. Interference is warranted only where the findings are shown to be perverse, based on no evidence or vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of the record. ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.09.11 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP-18653-2016, CWP-18663-2016 and CWP-18707-2016 -4- 9. The issue which, therefore, arises for consideration in the present petitions is a narrow one, namely, whether, after having found the termination to be illegal and having directed reinstatement, the learned Tribunal committed any illegality or perversity in restricting the back wages to 25%. 10. The answer has to be in the negative. The law relating to grant of back wages is well settled. In U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. v. Uday Narain Pandey, (2006) 1 SCC 479, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the relief of back wages has to be moulded having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. Likewise, in Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) and others, (2013) 10 SCC 324, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the principles governing grant of back wages and recognised the relevance of the assertion of unemployment as also the material which may be placed by the employer in rebuttal. Thus, the question of back wages cannot be determined in isolation from the facts and circumstances of the particular case. 11. In the present case, the material on record shows that the petitioners were engaged on contractual basis for an initial period of 89 days on a fixed consolidated salary and their engagement was extended from time to time. The management had specifically pleaded that their services were ultimately dispensed with when regular appointments had been made and their contractual services were no longer required. The petitioners were thus not appointed against regular or permanent posts. 12. The fact that the termination has been held to be illegal is, no doubt, a relevant circumstance in considering the consequential relief. However, the finding regarding illegality of termination and the question of ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.09.11 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP-18653-2016, CWP-18663-2016 and CWP-18707-2016 -5- the nature and extent of relief are two distinct aspects. The former does not, by itself, determine the latter. 13. In Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and another, 2009 (3) SCT 790, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that reinstatement with back wages is not to be granted mechanically in every case where termination is found to be in contravention of the prescribed procedure. The manner and method of appointment, nature of employment and length of service are relevant considerations while moulding the relief. The said principle was reiterated in B.S.N.L. v. Bhurumal, (2014) 7 SCC 177, wherein it was held that even where termination of a daily-wage worker is found illegal on account of violation of Section 25-F of the Act, reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and monetary compensation may, depending upon the facts, constitute an appropriate relief. 14. In the facts of the present case, the learned Tribunal did not treat the petitioners as persons appointed against regular posts. Their engagement was contractual in nature. While finding the termination illegal, the learned Tribunal granted reinstatement with continuity of service but restricted the back wages to 25%. The relief so granted was, therefore, one which was moulded by the learned Tribunal having regard to the nature of engagement of the petitioners and the circumstances of the case. 15. This Court does not find the said exercise of discretion to be arbitrary, perverse or unsupported by the material on record. Merely because the petitioners claim that they were not gainfully employed during the intervening period, it would not follow that they became automatically entitled to full back wages. The assertion of unemployment is certainly a relevant consideration, but the ultimate quantum of back wages remains ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.09.11 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP-18653-2016, CWP-18663-2016 and CWP-18707-2016 -6- dependent upon an overall assessment of the facts and circumstances of the case. 16. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioners upon the relief granted to similarly situated workmen also does not persuade this Court to interfere with the impugned awards. The question of back wages in another set of proceedings is stated to be pending consideration in LPA Nos.1315 to 1324 of 2014. In any event, the grant of a particular quantum of back wages in another case cannot, by itself, render the exercise of discretion in the present cases perverse or illegal. 17. Keeping in view the nature of engagement of the petitioners, the relief granted by the learned Tribunal and the settled principles governing award of back wages, this Court finds no sufficient ground to substitute its own view for the view taken by the learned Tribunal. The impugned awards do not suffer from any perversity, jurisdictional error or error of law warranting interference in exercise of the limited supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. 18. Consequently, finding no merit in the present writ petitions, CWP-18653-2016, CWP-18663-2016 and CWP-18707-2016 are dismissed. 19. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (KIRTI SINGH) September 03, 2026 JUDGE Ithlesh Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.09.11 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment