LPA No.1531 106 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Roshan Lal @ Billu Ram The Presiding Officer, CORAM: Present: DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA 1. the judgment dated 05.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby, the appellant lump-sum compensation of Rs.2 2. was employed as a daily month of January nurseries of the appellant-workman appellant-workman in the preceding he was entitled for No.1531-2024 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Roshan Lal @ Billu Ram Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA Mr. Jasmeet Singh Bedi, Advocate Mr. Pankaj Middha, Addl. AG, Haryana. ****** DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA, J. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 05.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby, the appellant-workman has been held entitled for grant of sum compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- in The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was employed as a daily-wager in the Department of F month of January, 1993. The appellant-workman worked in various nurseries of the abovesaid department. The service workman were terminated on workman as he had completed more than 240 days preceding 12 months from the date of he was entitled for protection under Section 25 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.1531-2024 (O&M) Reserved on: 14.07.2026 Pronounced on : 23.07.2026 …Appellant Labour Court, Ambala and another ...Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA Advocate for the appellant. Pankaj Middha, Addl. AG, Haryana. Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 05.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, has been held entitled for grant of in lieu of reinstatement. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant-workman wager in the Department of Forest in the workman worked in various department. The services of the terminated on 08.07.2004. As per the had completed more than 240 days in service the date of his termination. As such, ection 25-F of the Industrial RAMANDEEP SINGH 2026.07.24 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No.1531 Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as appellant-workman time of termination/retrenchment bad in law respondent workman, the was the case of had worked for more than 240 days the date of given by the respondent Act, at the time of termination/retrenchment, workman was entitled to be reinstated benefits. 3. consequence, the matter was referred to the appellant-workman as taken by him duly filed appellant- workman had only worked for 30 days in the month of August, 2001 was also the case of the employment was seasonal. As the appellant pleted 240 days his termination, there was no requirement of compliance of No.1531-2024 (O&M) -2- Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as workman, as no notice and compensation was given at the termination/retrenchment, the termination law. Aggrieved against the respondent-management in terminating the workman, the appellant-workman served a demand notice, wherein, the case of the appellant-workman that as the appellant had worked for more than 240 days in the the date of his termination, and as no notice given by the respondent-management in terms of at the time of termination/retrenchment, workman was entitled to be reinstated in service No settlement was arrived at consequence, the matter was referred to the workman duly filed his claim statement as taken by him in the demand notice. The respondent duly filed their written statement to the claim workman. As per the respondent workman had only worked for 30 days in the month of August, 2001 also the case of the respondent-management employment was seasonal. As the appellant pleted 240 days in service in the preceding termination, there was no requirement of compliance of Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). As per the compensation was given at the , the termination/retrenchment was abovesaid action of the the service of the appellant- workman served a demand notice, wherein, it workman that as the appellant-workman in the preceding 12 months from no notice and compensation was in terms of Section 25-F of the at the time of termination/retrenchment, as such, appellant- in service with all consequential arrived at between the parties and as a consequence, the matter was referred to the Labour Court, Ambala. The statement reiterating his stand . The statement reiterating his stand . The respondent-management written statement to the claim petition filed by the workman. As per the respondent-management, the appellant- workman had only worked for 30 days in the month of August, 2001. It management that the nature of employment was seasonal. As the appellant-workman had not com- preceding 12 months from the date of termination, there was no requirement of compliance of Section RAMANDEEP SINGH 2026.07.24 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No.1531 25-F of the workman is liable to be rejected. The Labour Court, Ambala, decided the reference against the appellant 06.08.2010. Labour Court, Ambala, would show that although, the Labour Court Ambala has given a finding that the appellant more than 240 days of his termination appellant-workman was not appointed on a sanction appointment Constitution protection under 4. the Labour Court Court being CWP allowed by the A perusal of the abovesaid judgment would Single Judge has taken into consideration the finding given by the Labour Court, Ambala that the than 240 da termination appellant-workman the Act. No.1531-2024 (O&M) -3- F of the Act. Accordingly, the claim workman is liable to be rejected. The Labour Court, Ambala, decided the reference against the appellant- workman, 06.08.2010. A perusal of the award dated 06.08.2010 Labour Court, Ambala, would show that although, the Labour Court has given a finding that the appellant more than 240 days in service in the preceding termination, however, taking into considerat workman was not appointed on a sanction appointment was in violation of the rules onstitution, the appellant-workman was held protection under Section 25-F of the Act. Aggrieved against the award bour Court, the appellant-workman Court being CWP-5971-2013. The abovesaid allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 05.01.2024 A perusal of the abovesaid judgment would Single Judge has taken into consideration the finding given by the Labour Court, Ambala that the appellant than 240 days in the preceding 12 months from the date of his termination and on the said basis, learned Single Judge has held that the workman was entitled for protection under Section 25 the Act. However, taking into consideration the the claim raised by the appellant- workman is liable to be rejected. The Labour Court, Ambala, decided workman, vide award dated dated 06.08.2010 passed by the Labour Court, Ambala, would show that although, the Labour Court, has given a finding that the appellant-workman has completed preceding 12 months from the date owever, taking into consideration the fact that the workman was not appointed on a sanctioned post and his ules and Article 14 & 16 of the was held not entitled for against the award dated 06.08.2010 passed by workman filed civil writ petition in this abovesaid writ petition was partly Judge vide judgment dated 05.01.2024. A perusal of the abovesaid judgment would show that the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the finding given by the appellant-workman has worked more in the preceding 12 months from the date of his learned Single Judge has held that the entitled for protection under Section 25-F of taking into consideration the nature of his RAMANDEEP SINGH 2026.07.24 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No.1531 employment lump-sum compensation of Rs.2 5. 05.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 6. appearing on behalf of the appellant Court, Ambala has given a finding that the appellant completed more than 240 days date of his management to comply with the He submits that there was a Judge has the Act, in that case, taking into consideration the length of service appellant-workman, the appellant in service that even for the sake of arguments, consideration the facts of the case, the appellant for compensation in lieu of reinstatement, in that case also, compensation awarded by the learned Single Judge is inadequate as on lesser appellant-workman. No.1531-2024 (O&M) -4- employment and other factors, learned Single Judge granted a sum compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- in lieu of Aggrieved against the abovesaid 05.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant has filed the present appeal. The only contentions raised appearing on behalf of the appellant-workman are that once, the Labour Ambala has given a finding that the appellant completed more than 240 days in the preceding his termination, it was mandatory for the respondent management to comply with the provisions of Section 25 submits that the learned Single Judge has also given a finding was a violation of Section 25-F of the Act. Once, learned Single has given a finding that there was a violation of in that case, taking into consideration the length of service workman, the appellant-workman in service with all consequential benefits. Learned counsel even for the sake of arguments, if it is p consideration the facts of the case, the appellant for compensation in lieu of reinstatement, in that case also, compensation awarded by the learned Single Judge is inadequate as on lesser side taking into consideration length of service workman. , learned Single Judge granted a in lieu of his reinstatement. abovesaid judgment dated 05.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant-workman contentions raised by the learned counsel workman are that once, the Labour Ambala has given a finding that the appellant-workman had preceding 12 months from the termination, it was mandatory for the respondent- provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. the learned Single Judge has also given a finding that F of the Act. Once, learned Single given a finding that there was a violation of Section 25-F of in that case, taking into consideration the length of service of workman is entitled to be reinstated with all consequential benefits. Learned counsel also submits it is presumed that taking into consideration the facts of the case, the appellant-workman is entitled for compensation in lieu of reinstatement, in that case also, the compensation awarded by the learned Single Judge is inadequate as it is side taking into consideration length of service of the RAMANDEEP SINGH 2026.07.24 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No.1531 7. the respondents reinstatement. V before a workman the provisions of the Act. He also submits that taking into consideration workman service, compensation in lieu of reinstatement. 8. the parties at assistance. 9. the appellant no concept of automatic reinstatement. Various factors have to be taken into consideration for the purpose of grant of benefit of reinstatement where the service of the workman is terminated/retrenched on account of violatio i.e. the nature and mode of appointment, the availability of work and the post, the length of service along with other factors for the said purpose. A perusal of facts of the case would show that it is not in dispute that the ap had worked for approximately services were terminated No.1531-2024 (O&M) -5- On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that there is no concept of automatic tement. Various factors have to be taken into consideration before a workman is held entitled for reinstatement provisions of the Act. He also submits that taking into consideration the mode and nature of employment of the appellant and the period of appellant service, learned Single Judge has rightly granted adequate compensation in lieu of reinstatement. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties at length and have perused the record with their able assistance. In regard to the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant-workman is concerned, it is a no concept of automatic reinstatement. Various factors have to be taken into consideration for the purpose of grant of benefit of reinstatement where the service of the workman is terminated/retrenched on account of violatio i.e. the nature and mode of appointment, the availability of work and post, the length of service along with other factors for the said purpose. A perusal of facts of the case would show that it is not in dispute that the appellant-workman was employed as a daily had worked for approximately 11 years services were terminated and the appellant On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of submits that there is no concept of automatic to be taken into consideration held entitled for reinstatement for violation of provisions of the Act. He also submits that taking into the mode and nature of employment of the appellant- appellant-workman out of learned Single Judge has rightly granted adequate We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of length and have perused the record with their able In regard to the contention raised by learned counsel for a well settled law that there is no concept of automatic reinstatement. Various factors have to be taken into consideration for the purpose of grant of benefit of reinstatement where the service of the workman is terminated/retrenched on account of violation of provisions of the Act i.e. the nature and mode of appointment, the availability of work and post, the length of service along with other factors for the said purpose. A perusal of facts of the case would show that it is not in workman was employed as a daily-wager and years and 05 months before his and the appellant-workman is out of service RAMANDEEP SINGH 2026.07.24 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No.1531 for almost 22 years. remained taken for the purpose of grant of benefit of reinstatement back-wages to the workman 10. Supreme Court in (2014) 7 SCC 177 though retrenchment was in violation of Section 25 reinstatement is not automatic and compensation may be awarded, particularly where the workman considerable time has elapsed since the termination. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced as under: No.1531-2024 (O&M) -6- for almost 22 years. It is well settled law that ined out of service and lapse of time, are for the purpose of grant of benefit of reinstatement wages to the workman. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited versus Bhurumal (2014) 7 SCC 177, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that though retrenchment was in violation of Section 25 reinstatement is not automatic and compensation may be awarded, particularly where the workman was engaged as a daily wager and considerable time has elapsed since the termination. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced 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 victimi 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, namely in violation of Section 25 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. settled law that period of a workman and lapse of time, are relevant factors to be for the purpose of grant of benefit of reinstatement and is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Nigam Limited versus Bhurumal, , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that though retrenchment was in violation of Section 25-F, relief of reinstatement is not automatic and compensation may be awarded, was engaged as a daily wager and considerable time has elapsed since the termination. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced as under:- 23. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgments that the ordinary principle of grant of atement 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, Section 25-F of the Industrial ourt 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. and RAMANDEEP SINGH 2026.07.24 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No.1531 11. Court in LPA No.838 of 2026 titled as Mahipal Singh Vs. Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. 27.03.2026 Tourism Corp. Ltd. and another, decided on 23.03.2026. 12. the appellant January, 1993 perusal of the No.1531-2024 (O&M) -7- 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 retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily required under Section 25-F of the 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 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.” Similar view has been taken by the Division Bench of this LPA No.838 of 2026 titled as Mahipal Singh Vs. Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. 27.03.2026 and LPA No.15 of 2026 titled as Sukhdev Vs. Haryana Tourism Corp. Ltd. and another, decided on 23.03.2026. A perusal of the facts of the present case would show that the appellant-workman was employed as a daily January, 1993 and his services were terminated of the facts of the case would also easons 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 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 ted, 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 , giving the relief of reinstatement, that too after a long gap, would not serve any purpose.” Similar view has been taken by the Division Bench of this LPA No.838 of 2026 titled as Mahipal Singh Vs. Haryana and another, decided on LPA No.15 of 2026 titled as Sukhdev Vs. Haryana Tourism Corp. Ltd. and another, decided on 23.03.2026. A perusal of the facts of the present case would show that a daily-wager in the month of terminated on 08.07.2004. A also show that the appellant- RAMANDEEP SINGH 2026.07.24 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No.1531 workman has worked for consideration the nature of employment and learned Single Judge has granted compensation Rs.2,00,000/ 13. finds no illegality in regard to grant of compensation by the learned Single Judge to the appellant reinstatement. It is not in dispute that the appellant remained appellant-workman had worked for compensation given by the learned Single Judge of Rs.2 lower side keeping in view the length of The appellant compensation of Rs. the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 14. Judge dated appellant-workman is held entitled for compensation of Rs. the learned Single Judge. 15. amount of compensation of Rs. within a period of copy of this judgment, failing which, the said amount shall carry No.1531-2024 (O&M) -8- workman has worked for more than consideration the nature of employment and learned Single Judge has granted compensation Rs.2,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement in service. Taking into consideration the facts of the case, this Court finds no illegality in regard to grant of compensation by the learned Single Judge to the appellant-workman instead of reinstatement. It is not in dispute that the appellant remained out of service for approximately workman had worked for more than 11 years compensation given by the learned Single Judge of Rs.2 lower side keeping in view the length of The appellant-workman is held entitled compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- instead of Rs.2,00,000/ the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated Accordingly, the judgment passed by Judge dated 05.01.2024 is modified to an extent that the workman is held entitled for compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- instead of Rs.2,00,000/ the learned Single Judge. The respondents are directed to pay the aforesaid enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.6,00,000/ within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, failing which, the said amount shall carry more than 11 years. Taking into consideration the nature of employment and length of service, the learned Single Judge has granted compensation of an amount of in service. Taking into consideration the facts of the case, this Court finds no illegality in regard to grant of compensation by the learned workman instead of benefit of reinstatement. It is not in dispute that the appellant-workman has out of service for approximately 22 years. As the more than 11 years, the compensation given by the learned Single Judge of Rs.2,00,000/- is on lower side keeping in view the length of his service and other factors. workman is held entitled to grant of an enhanced instead of Rs.2,00,000/- as awarded by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 05.01.2024. Accordingly, the judgment passed by the learned Single is modified to an extent that the workman is held entitled for grant of an enhanced instead of Rs.2,00,000/- as awarded by ondents are directed to pay the aforesaid enhanced ,00,000/- to the appellant-workman from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, failing which, the said amount shall carry an RAMANDEEP SINGH 2026.07.24 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No.1531 interest at the rate of 6 realization. 16. aforesaid terms 17. (SUVIR SEHGAL) JUDGE 23.07.2026 Ramandeep Singh Whether speaking / reasoned : Whether Reportable : No.1531-2024 (O&M) -9- nterest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of this judgment till realization. The Letters Patent Appeal stands aforesaid terms. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SUVIR SEHGAL) (DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA JUDGE .07.2026 Ramandeep Singh Whether speaking / reasoned : Whether Reportable : from the date of this judgment till The Letters Patent Appeal stands disposed of in the Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA) JUDGE Yes Yes RAMANDEEP SINGH 2026.07.24 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document