CWP No. 27835 of 2017 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (240) CWP No. 27835 of 2017 Date of Decision: 13.07.2026 Harjit Singh .....Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Ludhiana .....Respondents and another CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Sharwan Sehgal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Sonik, Advocate for respondent No. 2. **** KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL) 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for modifying the award dated 15.7.2016 passed by respondent No.1, whereby although the termination of the petitioner- workman was held to be illegal, the learned Tribunal declined the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages to the petitioner and instead awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs.75,000/- to him. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as a Driver with respondent No. 2 on w.e.f. 05.4.2002. On 29.3.2008, the services of the petitioner were terminated without issuance of any charge-sheet, without holding any enquiry and without the payment of notice pay and retrenchment compensation. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s union had raised some demands vide demand notice dated 16.8.2007 under Section Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 GURPREET SINGH 2026.07.22 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 27835 of 2017 -2- (for short ‘the Act of 1947’), which was pending before the Labour Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh. However, no approval was obtained by respondent No. 2 before terminating the services of the petitioner, which is a clear violation of Section 33 of the Act of 1947. Consequently, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute, which was referred by the Assistant Labour Commissioner to respondent No. 1 for adjudication. Vide award dated 15.07.2016, the learned Industrial Tribunal held the termination of the petitioner to be illegal but instead of directing reinstatement of the petitioner, awarded only a lump sum compensation of Rs.75,000/-. Learned counsel further submits that once the learned Tribunal itself arrived at the categorical finding that the termination of the petitioner was illegal, the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement in service with full back wages. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance on judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in case titled as ‘Hari Palace, Ambala City v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rohtak reported in 1979 (3) SLR 225 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Dixit versus M/s Vijay Kumar Gauri Shanker, Kanpur Nagar reported in 2015(3) SCT 27. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned award dated 15.07.2016 be modified and respondent No. 2 be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity of service, full back wages and all consequential benefits. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 opposes the present petition. It is submitted that after the passing of the impugned award, the matter was compromised between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 on the terms that both the parties shall withdraw all the litigations filed against each other. As per the said compromise, the petitioner had also received GURPREET SINGH 2026.07.22 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 27835 of 2017 -3- Rs. 1,20,000/- vide demand draft dated 22.1.2018. Pursuant to the said compromise, respondent No. 2 withdrew CWP-27302-2016, whereas the petitioner, after getting the settled amount, did not withdraw the present petition. Learned counsel further submits that vide contract dated 18.9.2006, the petitioner was employed on contractual basis for three years i.e. from 01.10.2006 to 30.9.2009. The petitioner last marked his presence on 26.3.2008 and thereafter never reported for duty. It is further submitted that the petitioner even failed to prove that he had worked for 240 days or more in a calendar year preceding the date of his alleged termination. Therefore, the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act are not attracted in the present case. It is also contended that the petitioner was never terminated by the management-respondent. Rather, he voluntarily absented himself from duty with effect from 26.03.2008. Despite repeated communications calling upon him to resume his duties, he failed to report for work and instead raised an industrial dispute only to harass respondent No 2. Therefore, it is prayed the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. 5. In order to adjudicate the issue (supra), it would be apposite to refer to certain authoritative pronouncements on the subject. 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 automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation even though the termination of an employee is in contravention of the prescribed procedure. Further held that compensation instead of reinstatement would meet the ends of justice. Moreover, the award of GURPREET SINGH 2026.07.22 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 27835 of 2017 -4- reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the workman has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of termination, particularly, daily wagers was not found to be proper and instead compensation was awarded. The relevant observations are extracted hereunder:- “7. It is true that earlier view of this Court articulated in many decisions reflected the legal position that if the termination of an employee was found to be illegal, the relief of reinstatement with fullback wages would ordinarily follow. However, in recent past, there has been a shift in the legal position and in long line of cases, this Court has consistently taken the view that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation even though the termination of an employee is in contravention to the prescribed procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice. 15. It would be, thus, seen that by catena of decisions in recent time, this Court has clearly laid down that an order of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25F although may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not, however, be automatically passed. The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the workman has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of termination, particularly, daily wagers has not been found to be proper by this Court and instead compensation has been awarded. This Court has distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee. Therefore, the view of the High Court that the Labour Court erred in granting reinstatement and back wages in the facts and circumstances of the present case cannot be said to suffer from any legal flaw. However, in our view, the High Court erred in not awarding compensation to the appellant while upsetting the award of reinstatement and back wages. As a matter of fact, in all the judgments of this Court referred to and relied upon by the High Court while upsetting the award of reinstatement and back wages, this Court has awarded compensation. 16. While awarding compensation, the host of factors, inter- alia, GURPREET SINGH 2026.07.22 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 27835 of 2017 -5- manner and method of appointment, nature of employment and length of service are relevant. Of course, each case will depend upon its own facts and circumstances. In a case such as this where the total length of service rendered by the appellant was short and intermittent from September 1, 1995 to July 18, 1996 and that he was engaged as a daily wager, in our considered view, a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the Appellant by Respondent No. 1 shall meet the ends of justice. We order accordingly. Such payment should be made within six weeks from today failing which the same will carry interest @ 9% per annum.” 6. The judgment (supra) was subsequently followed by the Supreme Court in case titled “B.S.N.L. Vs. Bhurumal”, 2014 AIR (SCW) 528, wherein it was held that where termination of a daily wage worker is found illegal solely due to procedural infirmities such as non-compliance with Section 25-F of the of the Act of 1947, reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and monetary compensation may be an appropriate remedy. However, it was clarified that where termination is actuated by unfair labour practice or in violation of the principle of “last come, first go”, reinstatement should ordinarily follow unless there are some other weighty reasons for adopting the course of grant of compensation instead of reinstatement. In that case, considering the long lapse of time, short tenure of service, and diminished requirement of manpower owing to technological advancements, only compensation was granted. The paragraphs containing the apposite observations read as under:- “23. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgments that the ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with full back wages, when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied mechanically in all cases. While that may be a position where services of a regular/permanent workman are terminated illegally and/or malafide and/or by way of victimization, unfair labour practice etc. However, when it comes to the case of termination of a daily wage worker and where the termination is found illegal because of procedural defect, GURPREET SINGH 2026.07.22 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 27835 of 2017 -6- namely in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is consistent in taking the view in such cases reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and instead the workman should be given monetary compensation which will meet the ends of justice. Rationale for shifting in this direction is obvious. 24. Reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is trite law that when the termination is found to be illegal because of non-payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, even after reinstatement, it is always open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment compensation. Since such a workman was working on daily wage basis and even after he is reinstated, he has no right to seek regularization (See: State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1). Thus when he cannot claim regularization and he has no right to continue even as a daily wage worker, no useful purpose is going to be served in reinstating such a workman and he can be given monetary compensation by the Court itself inasmuch as if he is terminated again after reinstatement, he would receive monetary compensation only in the form of retrenchment compensation and notice pay. In such a situation, giving the relief of reinstatement, that too after a long gap, would not serve any purpose. 25. We would, however, like to add a caveat here. There may be cases where termination of a daily wage worker is found to be illegal on the ground it was resorted to as unfair labour practice or in violation of the principle of last come first go viz. while retrenching such a worker daily wage juniors to him were retained. There may also be a situation that persons junior to him were regularized under some policy but the concerned workman terminated. In such circumstances, the terminated worker should not be denied reinstatement unless there are some other weighty reasons for adopting the course of grant of compensation instead of reinstatement. In such cases, reinstatement should be the rule and only in exceptional cases for the reasons stated to be in writing, such a relief can be denied. 26. Applying the aforesaid principles, let us discuss the present case. We find that the respondent was working as a daily wager. Moreover, the termination took place more than 11 years ago. No doubt, as per the respondent he had worked for 15 years. However, the fact remains that no direct evidence for working 15 years has been furnished by the respondent and most of his documents are relatable to GURPREET SINGH 2026.07.22 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 27835 of 2017 -7- two years i.e. 2001 and 2002. Therefore, this fact becomes relevant when it comes to giving the relief. Judicial notice can also be taken of the fact that the need of lineman in the telephone department is drastically reduced after the advancement of technology. For all these reasons, we are of the view that ends of justice would be met by granting compensation in lieu of reinstatement. In Man Singh (supra) which was also a case of BSNL, this Court had granted compensation of Rs.2 Lakh to each of the workmen when they had worked for merely 240 days. Since the respondent herein worked for longer period, we are of the view that he should be paid a compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs. This compensation should be paid within 2 months failing which the respondent shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of this judgment. Award of the CGIT is modified to this extent. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. The respondent shall also be entitled to the cost of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) in this appeal.” 7. Reverting to the case in hand, a perusal of the impugned award dated 15.7.2016 would reveal that after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence led by both sides, the learned Tribunal recorded a categorical finding that the action of the management in bringing the workman's employment to an end was not in accordance with law. It also observed that though the management alleged unauthorized absence on the part of the workman, but it neither initiated disciplinary proceedings nor complied with the mandatory requirements of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Consequently, the Tribunal rightly held that the termination was illegal. However, the learned Tribunal thereafter assigned cogent reasons for declining reinstatement of the petitioner in service. It observed that since the evidence on record established that the management had sold all its school buses and that the post of driver did not exist, therefore, the workman-petitioner could not be ordered to be reinstated in service. The learned Tribunal also observed that as per the compromise dated 18.09.2006, the contract of service of the workman-petitioner with the management was GURPREET SINGH 2026.07.22 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 27835 of 2017 -8- for three years i.e. upto 01.10.2009. It was thus that the workman was held entitled to get full back wages for a period of 29.3.2008 to 1.10.2009 and was also held entitled to get compensation for having continuously worked for more than 06 years w.e.f. 05.4.2002. Accordingly, after considering all the above facts, and the unpaid salary of the workman for the month of March, 2008, the learned Tribunal awarded a lump-sum compensation of Rs. 75,000/- to the petitioner-workman. 8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that the findings recorded by the authorities concerned are based on a proper appreciation of the material on record. 9. This Court while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 /227 of the Constitution of India does not sit as an appellate Court to re-appreciate factual findings in the absence of any manifest illegality or perversity. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional error, violation of principles of natural justice or patent illegality, warranting any interference by this Court. 10. Consequently, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same is hereby dismissed. 11. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE July 13th, 2026 Gurpreet Singh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No GURPREET SINGH 2026.07.22 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh