CWP-13878-2024 (O&M) and CWP-30644-2024 (O&M) -1- 260 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) CWP-13878-2024 (O&M) Date of decision: September 03, 2026 Ram Pal ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents (2) CWP-30644-2024 (O&M) Khand Shiksha Adhikari ...Petitioner Versus Ram Pal and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Ashwani Gaur, Advocate. for the petitioner (in CWP-13878-2024) for respondent No.1 (in CWP-30644-2024) Mr. Chirag Wadhwa, DAG, Haryana. for the petitioner (in CWP-30644-2024) for respondents (in CWP-13878-2024) **** KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. Both these writ petitions have been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India assailing the award dated 07.02.2024 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat in Reference No.376 of 2004. While CWP-13878-2024 has been filed by the workman seeking reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages in place of the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, CWP-30644-2024 has been filed by the management challenging the grant of compensation itself. Since ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.09.11 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP-13878-2024 (O&M) and CWP-30644-2024 (O&M) -2- both the petitions arise out of the same award, they are being decided together by this common order. 2. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from CWP- 13878-2024. 3. As per the pleaded case of the workman, he was appointed as a part-time Waterman/Kahar on 19.07.1993 in Government Primary School, Kasanda, District Sonepat, through the Employment Exchange, Gohana. He pleaded that he continued to discharge his duties satisfactorily and was being paid Rs 450/- per month. According to him, his salary was withheld from 01.04.2003 to 31.07.2004 and his services were thereafter illegally terminated on 01.08.2004 without notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation. Alleging violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), he raised an industrial dispute seeking reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages.The management contested the claim. Its stand was that the workman had been engaged only as a part-time Waterman/Kahar and, according to the departmental record, had worked from 19.07.1993 to 28.02.2003. It was pleaded that the engagement was temporary, that there was no sanctioned regular Class-IV post against which the workman could claim appointment, and that the engagement was dependent upon sanction being received from the competent authorities from time to time. On this basis, the management denied any illegal termination and prayed for dismissal of the reference. 4. The reference was initially answered against the workman vide award dated 13.05.2011. The said award was challenged by the workman in CWP-11608-2012. This Court, vide order dated 11.09.2023, set aside the earlier award and remanded the matter to the learned Tribunal for fresh consideration. The reason for remand was that the evidence of the departmental ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.09.11 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP-13878-2024 (O&M) and CWP-30644-2024 (O&M) -3- witness, Sahdev Singh, regarding the period during which the workman had worked had not been properly considered. The Court noticed the statement that the workman had worked from 1993 till 2003 except on Government holidays, but expressly clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim and left the question of entitlement to relief to be decided afresh by the learned Tribunal. 5. Upon remand, the learned Tribunal reconsidered the matter. The Tribunal noticed the rival stands regarding the date up to which the workman had actually worked. It also considered the oral and documentary evidence led by the parties. The Tribunal found that the workman was a “workman” within the meaning of the Act and that the requisite period of service for attracting Section 25-F stood established. It further found that his services had been brought to an end without notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation and consequently held the termination to be in violation of Section 25-F of the Act. 6. While considering the question of relief, however, the learned Tribunal did not direct reinstatement. Taking into consideration the nature of the engagement as a part-time Waterman/Kahar and the circumstances of the case, it awarded lump-sum compensation of Rs 5,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement. The amount was directed to be paid within two months from publication of the award, failing which interest at the rate of 6% per annum was made payable from the date of the award till payment. 7. Learned counsel for the workman submits that once the learned Tribunal had recorded a finding that the termination was in violation of Section 25-F of the Act, the appropriate relief ought to have been reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages, instead of lump-sum compensation. It is submitted that the workman had rendered service for about ten years from 1993 onwards and was removed without notice or payment of retrenchment ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.09.11 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP-13878-2024 (O&M) and CWP-30644-2024 (O&M) -4- compensation. It is further contended that the State Government had framed policies for regularisation/appointment of eligible part-time Class-IV employees against regular sanctioned vacancies and the subsequent policy dated 11.11.2003 contemplated preparation of a district level common seniority list and filling up of regular vacancies from amongst eligible part-time employees on the basis of seniority. According to learned counsel, the illegal termination deprived the workman of an opportunity to be considered under the said policies. 8. It is further submitted that the material on record, including the district-level seniority list, supports the workman's plea thatt similarly situated employees, including persons stated to be junior to him, were retained and/or extended the benefit of regularisation, whereas his services were terminated. It is, thus, urged that the learned Tribunal, having found the termination illegal, erred in denying reinstatement and restricting the relief to compensation of Rs 5,00,000/-. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on Jeetubha Khansangji Jadeja v. Kutchh District Panchayat, Civil Appeal No. 6890 of 2022. 9. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, submits that the learned Tribunal erred even in granting compensation. It is contended that the workman was engaged only on part-time basis and that the departmental record showed his engagement only up to 28.02.2003. It is further submitted that the engagement was dependent upon yearly sanction and there was no sanctioned regular post available. According to learned State counsel, the learned Tribunal consequently erred in fastening liability upon the management and in awarding compensation of Rs 5,00,000/-. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material on record. ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.09.11 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP-13878-2024 (O&M) and CWP-30644-2024 (O&M) -5- 11. The first question which arises for consideration is whether the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal regarding violation of Section 25-F of the Act calls for interference. 12. In this regard, it is significant that the earlier award dated 13.05.2011 had already been set aside by this Court. The order dated 11.09.2023 was passed because the material evidence relating to the period of engagement of the workman had not been properly considered. The learned Tribunal was thereafter required to reconsider the matter on the basis of the evidence already available on record. The Tribunal has undertaken that exercise and has returned a finding, on appreciation of the evidence, that the workman had rendered the requisite period of service and that his services were terminated without compliance with Section 25-F. 13. The said finding cannot be said to be perverse. The management itself admitted the engagement of the workman from 19.07.1993, though it disputed the date up to which he continued to work. The Tribunal also considered the evidence concerning the alleged cessation of his engagement on 28.02.2003 and the workman's assertion that he continued up to 31.07.2004. It thereafter recorded its finding on the basis of the evidence before it. The Tribunal further noticed the evidence regarding the absence of notice or hearing and the absence of payment of retrenchment compensation. 14. The plea that the workman was only a part-time employee also does not, by itself, take the engagement outside the ambit of the Act. The learned Tribunal considered this aspect and held that a part-time employee is not excluded from the protection available under the Act merely on account of the part-time nature of the engagement. 15. Likewise, the plea regarding absence of yearly sanction cannot, by itself, justify non-compliance with the statutory requirement applicable to ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.09.11 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP-13878-2024 (O&M) and CWP-30644-2024 (O&M) -6- retrenchment. The question before the learned Tribunal was not whether the workman had acquired a right to regular appointment, but whether, having been engaged and having rendered the requisite period of service, his services could be brought to an end without complying with the statutory conditions governing retrenchment. 16. The next question is as to the appropriate relief. Merely because the termination has been found to be in violation of Section 25-F of the Act, reinstatement does not follow as an automatic or inexorable consequence in every case. The relief has to be moulded having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case, including the nature of employment, the manner of appointment, the length of service, the period elapsed since termination and the circumstances in which the relief is being considered. 17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.S.N.L. v. Bhurumal, 2013 Supreme(SC) 1120, has explained that while reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal relief in cases of illegal termination, there can be situations where, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances, compensation in lieu of reinstatement would be appropriate. The Court has also emphasised that where the employment is of a temporary nature and considerable time has elapsed, compensation may be a more appropriate relief than reinstatement. The principle is not that every violation of Section 25-F must necessarily culminate in reinstatement; rather, the relief is required to be appropriately moulded on the facts of the case. 18. In the present case, the workman was engaged as a part-time Waterman/Kahar. His engagement was not against a regular sanctioned post. The management had also taken the specific stand that such engagement was dependent upon sanction from the competent authority. Most importantly, the termination relates to the year 2004 and considerable time has elapsed ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.09.11 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP-13878-2024 (O&M) and CWP-30644-2024 (O&M) -7- thereafter. The dispute has remained pending for a prolonged period and the workman has not been in service during this entire period. In these circumstances, directing reinstatement at this stage would not be an appropriate relief merely because the termination has been found to be contrary to Section 25-F of the Act. 19. The decision relied upon by learned counsel for the workman in Jeetubha Khansangji Jadeja v. Kutchh District Panchayat (supra) does not compel a different conclusion. The said judgment turned upon its own facts, including the material concerning retention of juniors, the conduct of the management in relation to production of relevant records and the circumstances leading to the prolonged litigation. The said decision cannot be read as laying down an absolute proposition that reinstatement must necessarily be ordered in every case of retrenchment in violation of Section 25-F. The question of relief remains dependent upon the facts of each case. 20. Here, the learned Tribunal has considered the nature of the workman's engagement, the fact that he was a part-time employee and the considerable passage of time, and has consciously chosen to substitute reinstatement by a lump-sum compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The said approach is consistent with the principle that the relief in an industrial dispute has to be moulded to meet the ends of justice and that reinstatement is not an inevitable consequence in every case of illegal termination. 21. The challenge by the management to the grant of compensation also cannot succeed. Once the finding of violation of Section 25-F is sustained, the workman is entitled to appropriate relief. The management cannot simultaneously rely upon the part-time and temporary nature of the engagement to deny the statutory protection under Section 25-F and, having failed to comply with that protection, seek complete denial of relief. The learned ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.09.11 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP-13878-2024 (O&M) and CWP-30644-2024 (O&M) -8- Tribunal has, therefore, rightly granted monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement. 22. As regards the quantum, the amount of Rs 5,00,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal cannot be said to be so arbitrary, irrational or disproportionate as to warrant interference in exercise of the limited jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. The compensation is a lump-sum measure of relief and is not to be treated as a mathematical substitute for wages for the entire period during which the workman remained out of employment. 23. The material relied upon by the workman regarding the Government policies and the seniority list also does not establish, by itself, a vested right to regular appointment. The policy material relied upon in the paper-book itself contemplates consideration of eligible part-time Class-IV employees against available regular sanctioned posts and makes it clear that mere length of part-time service does not confer an automatic right to such a post. 24. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the finding of the learned Tribunal regarding violation of Section 25-F of the Act calls for no interference. At the same time, the workman has not made out a case for reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. The learned Tribunal was justified in moulding the relief by awarding compensation in lieu of reinstatement. The management, too, has failed to demonstrate any perversity or juirsdictional error warranting interference with the award of compensation. 25. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, this Court does not sit as an appellate Court over the findings of the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal. Unless the findings are shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, contrary to law or suffering from a ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.09.11 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP-13878-2024 (O&M) and CWP-30644-2024 (O&M) -9- jurisdictional error, interference is not warranted. In the present case, the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are based upon the material available on record and represent a legally permissible view. 26. Consequently, neither of the two writ petitions warrants interference with the award dated 07.02.2024 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat. The finding regarding violation of Section 25-F and the award of Rs 5,00,000/- as compensation in lieu of reinstatement are accordingly upheld. 27. Accordingly, the instant petition stands dismissed. 28. Pending application(s), if any, 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