CWP-289 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 208 Principal, Vaish Technical Institute, Rohtak Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal Labour Court, Rohtak and another CORAM: PRESENT: KIRTI SINGH 1. Management i.e. Principal, Vaish Technical Institute, Rohtak, whereby, award dated 05.09.2018 Tribunal-cum been challenged, vide which, reference No.8 favour of respondent No.2 violation of Section 25 Act’). 2. written statement filed No.2 was adhoc/contract basis at a salary of Rs.1700/ fund and that he 956-2018 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Principal, Vaish Technical Institute, Rohtak Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum Labour Court, Rohtak and another CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH PRESENT: Mr. Lokesh Sharma, Advocate Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner(s). (through VC) Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** KIRTI SINGH, J. (Oral) Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Management i.e. Principal, Vaish Technical Institute, Rohtak, whereby, award dated 05.09.2018 (Annexure P- cum-Labour Court, Rohtak (for brevity, ‘learned Tribunal’) has been challenged, vide which, reference No.8 favour of respondent No.2 –workman, by observing that there is violation of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, ‘ID A perusal of the case record reveals that written statement filed before the learned Tribunal, admitted that was appointed as ‘Mali-cum-Chowkidar’ in the Institute on adhoc/contract basis at a salary of Rs.1700/ and that he worked with the Management from IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-28956-2018 Decided on : 17.07.202 Principal, Vaish Technical Institute, Rohtak . . . Petitioner(s) Versus cum- . . . Respondent(s) KIRTI SINGH Mr. Lokesh Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Advocate (through VC) Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Management i.e. Principal, Vaish Technical Institute, Rohtak, whereby, -7), passed by learned Industrial Labour Court, Rohtak (for brevity, ‘learned Tribunal’) has been challenged, vide which, reference No.87 of 2016, has been answered in workman, by observing that there is a clear H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, ‘ID A perusal of the case record reveals that the Management in its before the learned Tribunal, admitted that respondent Chowkidar’ in the Institute on adhoc/contract basis at a salary of Rs.1700/- per month paid from the hostel worked with the Management from 13/14.07.2010 .2026 . . . Petitioner(s) . . . Respondent(s) Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner – Management i.e. Principal, Vaish Technical Institute, Rohtak, whereby, 7), passed by learned Industrial Labour Court, Rohtak (for brevity, ‘learned Tribunal’) has of 2016, has been answered in a clear H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, ‘ID in its respondent Chowkidar’ in the Institute on from the hostel 10 to SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.21 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-289 29.01.2016. 3. learned counsel for the petitioner notice pay amount to Rs.9000/ Rs.77,850/ 25-F of the ID Act stand taken by the and one month salary, for the notice period, is paid to the workman, there is compliance of all the provisions of the I 4. workman, submits that petitioner chowkida Placement Services, Rohtak attendance register for the month of February, 2016, before the evidently services th violating t was not services o 5. company against an identical order passed by the learned Tribunal in the case of a similarly situated employee has been dismissed the coordinate Bench of this Court in 6. 956-2018 - 2 - 29.01.2016. While referring to the letter dated 29.01.2 counsel for the petitioner–management submits that one month notice pay amount to Rs.9000/- in lieu of not 0/- in lieu of retrenchment compensation, as required under Section of the ID Act, has been credited in the account of the workman. stand taken by the management is that once the retrenchment compensation and one month salary, for the notice period, is paid to the workman, there is compliance of all the provisions of the I.D Act. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. workman, submits that before and afte r, the petitioner-company had hir ars through the outsourcing Placement Services, Rohtak. In support o attendance register for the month of February, 2016, e learned Tribunal. It is submitte terminated the services of its reg hough outsourcing which amounts to unfair labour practice the provisions of Section 25 H of the I.D. Act even given an opportunity of of chowkidars by way of outsour It is further highlighted that the petition filed by the petitioner company against an identical order passed by the learned Tribunal in the case of a similarly situated employee has been dismissed the coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP Heard. While referring to the letter dated 29.01.2016 (Annexure P- anagement submits that one month in lieu of notice period and an amount of in lieu of retrenchment compensation, as required under Section , has been credited in the account of the workman. Thus, anagement is that once the retrenchment compensation and one month salary, for the notice period, is paid to the workman, there is D Act. ounsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. er termination of services of red the services of as many as n agency-M/s Ajay Security and of this contention, he referred to attendance register for the month of February, 2016, produced on rec ed that the petitioner-company h gular employees and hired the sa outsourcing which amounts to unfair labour practice there Section 25 H of the I.D. Act, since the respond f re-employment while hiring rcing. It is further highlighted that the petition filed by the petitioner company against an identical order passed by the learned Tribunal in the case of a similarly situated employee has been dismissed on 22.02.2024 CWP-4860-2019. -1), anagement submits that one month ice period and an amount of in lieu of retrenchment compensation, as required under Section Thus, anagement is that once the retrenchment compensation and one month salary, for the notice period, is paid to the workman, there is ounsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2– the nine M/s Ajay Security and the cord had ame eby dent the It is further highlighted that the petition filed by the petitioner- company against an identical order passed by the learned Tribunal in the on 22.02.2024 by SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.21 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-289 7. in the case 8. to distinguish the case of the respondent CWP-4860 9. same terms as in CWP accordingly 10. disposed o July 17, 202 SwarnjitS Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether Reportable: 956-2018 - 3 - The operative part of the order passed by the coordinate Bench e of an identically situated workman reads thus: “xxxx 6. This Court has examined the pleadings before it, along with the documents appended with the writ petition and also heard counsel from both the sides. 7. Section 25-H of the ID Act, says as under: “25H. Re-employment of retrenched workmen. any workmen are retrenched, and the employer proposes to take into his employ any persons, he manner as may be prescribed, give an opportunity [to the retrenched workmen who are citizens of India to offer themselves for reemployment and such retrenched workman] who offer themselves for re have preference over other p 8. After going through the said legal provision, this Court does not find that any piece of evidence has been brought on record by the Management, to the effect that at any point of time, after the retrenchment of the workman, an offer of employ Section 25-H of the ID Act, before getting services through some other persons or through some other agency. In view of above, this Court does not find any substantial ground to deviate from the view point taken by th Hence, present writ petition sans merits, and is Learned counsel for the petitioner to distinguish the case of the respondent- 4860-2019. Accordingly, relief granted to the workman is upheld in the same terms as in CWP-4860-2019, and the present writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous app of. , 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No The operative part of the order passed by the coordinate Bench of an identically situated workman reads thus:- This Court has examined the pleadings before it, along with the the writ petition and also heard counsel from H of the ID Act, says as under:- employment of retrenched workmen. -- Where any workmen are retrenched, and the employer proposes to take into his employ any persons, he shall, in such manner as may be prescribed, give an opportunity [to the retrenched workmen who are citizens of India to offer themselves for reemployment and such retrenched workman] who offer themselves for re-employment shall have preference over other persons.” After going through the said legal provision, this Court does not find that any piece of evidence has been brought on record by the Management, to the effect that at any point of time, after the retrenchment of the workman, an offer of employment was made to him, to comply with H of the ID Act, before getting services through some other persons or through some other agency. In view of above, this Court does not find any substantial ground to deviate from the view point taken by the learned Tribunal. Hence, present writ petition sans merits, and is dismissed accordingly.” Learned counsel for the petitioner–company has not been able -workman from that of the facts in Accordingly, relief granted to the workman is upheld in the 2019, and the present writ petition is plication(s), if any, also stan (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE The operative part of the order passed by the coordinate Bench This Court has examined the pleadings before it, along with the the writ petition and also heard counsel from Where any workmen are retrenched, and the employer proposes shall, in such manner as may be prescribed, give an opportunity [to the retrenched workmen who are citizens of India to offer themselves for reemployment and such retrenched employment shall After going through the said legal provision, this Court does not find that any piece of evidence has been brought on record by the Management, to the effect that at any point of time, after the retrenchment ment was made to him, to comply with H of the ID Act, before getting services through some other In view of above, this Court does not find any substantial e learned Tribunal. ” company has not been able workman from that of the facts in Accordingly, relief granted to the workman is upheld in the 2019, and the present writ petition is nds SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.21 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document