CWP No. 10084-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (120) CWP No. 10084-2025 Date of Decision : 08.04.2025 Karam Singh ...Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ambala and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present: Mr. Shivam Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. *** Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral) 1. In the present petition, the grievance being raised by the petitioner is that by a totally cryptic and non-speaking Award dated 24.09.2024 (Annexure P-7), the claim of the petitioner for the grant of reinstatement in service has been declined. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the services of the petitioner were wrongly terminated by respondent No. 2 hence, the petitioner was entitled to be reinstated with respondent No. 3 with continuity and back wages. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record with his able assistance. 4. It has already come on record that the petitioner was working through an outsourcing agency i.e. respondent No. 2. Further, on the date when the services of the petitioner were terminated, he had already crossed Kanchan 2025.04.10 12:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP No. 10084-2025 2 the maximum age of 60 years. That being so, an employee who has no right to continue in service, cannot claim that his services were terminated wrongly or he is entitled for reinstatement and consequent back wages. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to rebut the said finding recorded by the Labour Court qua the fact that petitioner had crossed the age of superannuation on the alleged date of termination of his services. 6. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner had already attained the maximum age for which he can serve with respondent No. 1 at the time of alleged termination, which fact has been kept in mind by the Tribunal to deny the benefit, the Award dated 24.09.2024 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Labour Court cannot be treated to be perverse to facts on record in any manner. 7. No ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the present petition. 8. Dismissed. April 08, 2025 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) kanchan JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No Kanchan 2025.04.10 12:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment