IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 117/3 M/S SUKH CHAIN GEAR INDUSTRIAL AND ANOTHER CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present: Mr. Mr. Rajat Singla, Advocate and Mr. Yatin Mehta, Advocate ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) The appellant has challenged the order of the Single Bench dated 17.03.2025, whereby in the Civil Writ Petition No. the respondents challenging the award of the Labour Court, compensation has been awarded instead of reinstatement in service. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that had been working with the appellant on daily workman-respondent No.2 had abandoned the job and left w.e.f. 12.03.2015. The respondent No.2 had approached Labour Court Award dated 16.10.2019 Rs.2,00,000/- to the workman in lieu of his claim for reinstat back wages and other service benefits. appellant before Single Bench, which Labour Court and dismissed the petition on 17.03.2025. 3. Heard. 4. The from 19.04.1996 without any notice and grievance and claimed benefits. The Labour Court IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA-1291-2025 DATE OF DECISION: M/S SUKH CHAIN GEAR Versus INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT III FARIDABAD AND ANOTHER HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Mr. Aditya Jain, Advocate Mr. Rajat Singla, Advocate and Mr. Yatin Mehta, Advocate for the appellant ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) The appellant has challenged the order of the Single Bench dated , whereby in the Civil Writ Petition No. the respondents challenging the award of the Labour Court, compensation has been awarded instead of reinstatement in service. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that working with the appellant on daily respondent No.2 had abandoned the job and left w.e.f. 12.03.2015. The respondent No.2 had approached Labour Court Award dated 16.10.2019 had directed the appellant to the workman in lieu of his claim for reinstat back wages and other service benefits. This Award before Single Bench, which did not interfere Labour Court and dismissed the petition on 17.03.2025. Heard. The respondent No.2 is stated to have worked as ‘ from 19.04.1996 on daily wage basis. His services were terminated without any notice and he had approached Labour Court grievance and claimed reinstatement in service, back wages and other service he Labour Court by its Award dated 16.10.2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 2025 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 22.07.2025 … Appellant (s) TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT III FARIDABAD ... Respondent(s) HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA appellant. The appellant has challenged the order of the Single Bench dated , whereby in the Civil Writ Petition No.36621 of 2019 preferred by the respondents challenging the award of the Labour Court, compensation has been awarded instead of reinstatement in service. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that respondent No.2 had working with the appellant on daily wages from 19.04.1996. The respondent No.2 had abandoned the job and left w.e.f. 12.03.2015. The respondent No.2 had approached Labour Court and the Labour Court by its appellant to pay compensation of to the workman in lieu of his claim for reinstatement in service, Award had been challenged by the did not interfere with the Award of the Labour Court and dismissed the petition on 17.03.2025. is stated to have worked as ‘Milling man’ on daily wage basis. His services were terminated by appellant had approached Labour Court for redressal of his reinstatement in service, back wages and other service by its Award dated 16.10.2019 had directed the TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT III FARIDABAD The appellant has challenged the order of the Single Bench dated preferred by the respondents challenging the award of the Labour Court, compensation has respondent No.2 had 19.04.1996. The respondent No.2 had abandoned the job and left w.e.f. 12.03.2015. its to pay compensation of ment in service, challenged by the the Award of the Milling man’ by appellant for redressal of his reinstatement in service, back wages and other service SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.07.25 09:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1291-2025 (O&M) -2- appellant to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to respondent No.2 in lieu of his claim. This Award of Labour Court was challenged and the Single Bench had dismissed the writ petition on 17.03.2025 without interfering with the Award. 5. It is trite that the Supreme Court has held that instead of directing reinstatement in service, the daily wager could be suitably compensated by granting monetary compensation and the principle of grant of reinstatement is not to be applied mechanically even when the termination is found illegal. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. Bhurumal (2014) 7 SCC 177. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:- “xxxxx “33. 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 mala fide and/or by way of victimisation, 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 a procedural defect, namely, in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is consistent in taking the view that 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. 34. The 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. Xxxxx” SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.07.25 09:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1291-2025 (O&M) -3- The judgment in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. Bhurumal (supra) has been followed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttarakhand Vs. Raj Kumar, 2019 (14) SCC 353. 6. Therefore, as respondent No.2 was working as a daily wager and did not hold a regular post, he has been rightly awarded compensation instead of reinstatement by the Labour Court which has been upheld by the Single Bench. We do not find any illegality in the order of the Single Bench warranting interference in Letters Patent Appeal. The appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed. 7. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) JUDGE 22.07.2025 SwarnjitS Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.07.25 09:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document