LPA-565-2025 (O&M) 114 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Neelam Hospital and Maternity Home Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, CORAM: HON HON Present:- Mr. SUDHIR SINGH CM-1463-LPA For the 54 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Main case (O&M) The present 27.11.2024 passed by learned Single Judge, in CWP the said writ petition 2. Before the learned Single Judge to the award dated by the Presiding Officer, whereby, an amount of Rs.50,000/ No.2/workman 2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH Decided on Neelam Hospital and Maternity Home versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patiala and HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR Mr. Sahil Khunger, Advocate for the appellant ***** SUDHIR SINGH, J. (ORAL) LPA-2025 For the reasons stated in application, same is allowed. Delay of days in filing the appeal is condoned. Main case (O&M) The present intra Court appeal is directed against the order dated passed by learned Single Judge, in CWP the said writ petition filed by the appellant, has been dismissed. Before the learned Single Judge, the appellant had laid challenge award dated 22.07.2024 (Annexure P-4 Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patiala an amount of Rs.50,000/- was awarded to respondent /workman as retrenchment compensation. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH LPA-565-2025 (O&M) Decided on: February 21, 2025 ….Appellant and another ….Respondents SUDHIR SINGH S. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR , Advocate for the appellant. reasons stated in application, same is allowed. Delay of ourt appeal is directed against the order dated passed by learned Single Judge, in CWP-31994-2024, whereby filed by the appellant, has been dismissed. , the appellant had laid challenge 4 with the writ petition) passed Patiala (for short ‘the Tribunal’) was awarded to respondent as retrenchment compensation. 2025 (O&M) February 21, 2025 .Appellant s reasons stated in application, same is allowed. Delay of ourt appeal is directed against the order dated , whereby , the appellant had laid challenge passed Tribunal’) was awarded to respondent MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.02.27 18:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment LPA-565-2025 (O&M) 3. Learned Single Judge had found that at the time of retrenchment of respondent No.2/workman, she was getting a salary of Rs.7,400/- per month and therefore, the amount of compensation of Rs.50,000/- requires no interference. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Hospital has vehemently contended that neither any appointment letter as regards the appointment of respondent No.2/workman was proved on record nor respondent No.2/workman had proved that she had worked with the appellant for the period 10.08.2009 – 05.07.2016. It is further argued that the appellant/Hospital was not covered by the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the ID Act’), and therefore, the impugned award passed by the Labour Court was not tenable. It is thus, argued that all these aspects have totally been ignored by the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 6. A perusal of the award dated 22.07.2024 passed by the Labour Court would show that the stand of the appellant was that services of respondent No.2/workman were availed as a casual labour and therefore, she was not governed by the provisions of the ID Act. Even the said plea had also been reiterated by the learned counsel for the appellant before the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge negated the said argument in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Devinder Singh versus Municipal Council, Sangrur, reported as (2011) 6 SCC 584. MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.02.27 18:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment LPA-565-2025 (O&M) 7. As the appellant has disputed the claim of respondent No.2/workman only on the ground that she had worked as a casual labour, we find that the findings recorded by learned Single Judge and the Labour Court do not require any interference. It has rightly been found that when respondent No.2/workman was retrenched, she was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.7,400/- and, thus, having worked from 2009 till 2016 with the aforesaid monthly salary, the award of retrenchment compensation of Rs.50,000/- cannot be said to be unwarranted, illegal or unjustified. 8. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order, which may warrant any interference by this Court. 9. No other point has been urged. 10. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. 11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (SUDHIR SINGH) JUDGE (SUKHVINDER KAUR) JUDGE February 21, 2025 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.02.27 18:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment