(139) LPA-1541-2025 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1 LPA No.1541 of 2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 28.08.2025 RABBI SINGH .....Appellant Versus PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT CUM INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL LUDHIANA AND OTHERS ........Respondents 2 LPA No.1521 of 2025 (O&M) NAND LAL .....Appellant Versus PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT CUM INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL LUDHIANA AND OTHERS ........Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present: Ms. Jyoti Yadav, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Akhil Kamra, AAG, Punjab. * * * * * ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (Oral) As common questions of law and facts are involved in these two appeals, they are being disposed of by this judgment. For reference, facts are being taken from LPA No.1541 of 2025. 2. The appellant has challenged the judgment of learned Single Bench dated 10.03.2025, whereby the writ petition(s) preferred by the appellant challenging the award dated 25.04.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Ludhiana, has been dismissed. SANDEEP KUMAR 2025.08.29 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. (139) LPA-1541-2025 (O&M) 2 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had worked for over two years, he would be entitled to the benefit of Section 25- F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and therefore, he could not have been retrenched without being paid compensation for retrenchment. 4. Heard. 5. The appellant is stated to have been appointed as a ‘volunteer’ under the ‘Guardians of Governance Scheme’ in the year 2017. He was about 73 years old at that time. He had continued to work for two years till the scheme was in operation. Upon termination of the scheme, his services were also dispensed with. The Labour Court had arrived at the finding of fact that the scheme had been closed and therefore, the services of the appellant could not be continued. The appellant had worked for only two years under the scheme which was discontinued. 6. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality in the judgment of the learned Single Bench dismissing the writ petition preferred by the appellant and upholding the award of the Labour Court. Consequently, both the Letters Patent Appeal(s) being devoid of any merit stand dismissed. 7. All pending miscellaneous application(s) also stand disposed of. (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) 28.08.2025 JUDGE sandeep Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No SANDEEP KUMAR 2025.08.29 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.