IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 129 ANIL KUMAR THE DISTRICT FISHERIES OFFICER CUM CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND OTHERS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present: Mr. Mr. Sahaj Punj, Advocate for the appellant. ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) CM-3882-LPA-2025 This application is for preferring the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 30 days in preferring the appeal is condoned. MAIN CASE The appellant has impugned the order the Single Bench whereby the Award of the Labour Court has been the extent that instead compensation. 2. Learned counsel appellant had been and therefore, once the termination directed to be reinstated in service by the La IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA-1582-2025 DATE OF DECISION: 21.07.2025 Versus THE DISTRICT FISHERIES OFFICER CUM CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND OTHERS HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Rajesh Punj, Advocate and Mr. Sahaj Punj, Advocate for the appellant. ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) 2025 This application is for the condonation of preferring the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 30 days in preferring the appeal is condoned. The appellant has impugned the order the Single Bench whereby the Award of the Labour Court has been the extent that instead of the reinstatement, the appellant has been awarded Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the services of the appellant had been erroneously terminated without following and therefore, once the termination has been held to be bad directed to be reinstated in service by the Labour Court. He also submits that the IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 21.07.2025 … Petitioner (s) THE DISTRICT FISHERIES OFFICER CUM CHIEF EXECUTIVE ... Respondent(s) HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Mr. Sahaj Punj, Advocate for the appellant. condonation of a delay of 30 days in For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 30 days in preferring the appeal is condoned. The appellant has impugned the order dated 03.03.2025 passed by the Single Bench whereby the Award of the Labour Court has been modified to the reinstatement, the appellant has been awarded for the appellant submits that the services of the terminated without following the due procedure held to be bad, he had been rightly bour Court. He also submits that the delay of 30 days in For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and passed by modified to the reinstatement, the appellant has been awarded for the appellant submits that the services of the due procedure he had been rightly bour Court. He also submits that the SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.07.23 11:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1582-2025 judgments relied upon by the Single Bench of this facts and are not applicable to the instant case. 3. Heard. 4. The appellant is stated to have been appointed Watchman on daily month. His services had been terminated by order dated 5. The Labour Court had directed his reinstatement along with continuity in service and 50% back wages. Bench that apparently the appellant had agency. The appellant had impleaded K.P. Shop Nos.2 and 3, Palika Vihar, Jagadhari Gate, Ambala City, Tehsil and District Ambala as respondent No.3 he had not been appointed 6. It is trite that the Supreme Court has held that instead of directing reinstatement in service, the daily wager could be suitably compensated. Reference can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. Bh relevant paragraph of the judgment is reproduced hereunder: “xxxxx that the ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with full back wages, when the 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. H a daily because of a procedural defect, namely, in violation of 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. Xxxxx” (O&M) relied upon by the Single Bench of this facts and are not applicable to the instant case. Heard. The appellant is stated to have been appointed Watchman on daily wages on 08.05.2017, at a fixed salary of Rs.12,620/ month. His services had been terminated by order dated The Labour Court had directed his reinstatement along with continuity in service and 50% back wages. It has been noticed by the Single Bench that apparently the appellant had been employed through he appellant had impleaded K.P. Group Shop Nos.2 and 3, Palika Vihar, Jagadhari Gate, Ambala City, Tehsil and District as respondent No.3. The appellant had not been able to controvert that appointed through an outsourcing It is trite that the Supreme Court has held that instead of directing reinstatement in service, the daily wager could be suitably compensated. Reference can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. Bhurumal (2014) 7 SCC 177 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 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. Xxxxx” -2- relied upon by the Single Bench of this Court are distinguishable on The appellant is stated to have been appointed as Fisherman-cum- at a fixed salary of Rs.12,620/- per month. His services had been terminated by order dated 03.04.2019. The Labour Court had directed his reinstatement along with It has been noticed by the Single employed through an outsourcing Group 9, Security and Home Keeping, Shop Nos.2 and 3, Palika Vihar, Jagadhari Gate, Ambala City, Tehsil and District ellant had not been able to controvert that outsourcing agency. It is trite that the Supreme Court has held that instead of directing reinstatement in service, the daily wager could be suitably compensated. Reference can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of urumal (2014) 7 SCC 177. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:- It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgments that the ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with full back 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 owever, when it comes to the case of termination of 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 distinguishable on - per The Labour Court had directed his reinstatement along with It has been noticed by the Single outsourcing 9, Security and Home Keeping, Shop Nos.2 and 3, Palika Vihar, Jagadhari Gate, Ambala City, Tehsil and District ellant had not been able to controvert that It is trite that the Supreme Court has held that instead of directing reinstatement in service, the daily wager could be suitably compensated. Reference can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of The It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgments that the ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with full back 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 owever, when it comes to the case of termination of wage worker and where the termination is found illegal F 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 SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.07.23 11:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1582-2025 7. Therefore, a hold a regular post awarded compensation by the Single Bench instead of reinstatement. 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 8. Pending applications also stand disposed of. 21.07.2025 SwarnjitS Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable (O&M) Therefore, as the appellant was working on daily wages and post, after holding his termination bad, he had been rightly awarded compensation by the Single Bench instead of reinstatement. 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 Pending applications also stand disposed of. (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No -3- was working on daily wages and did not termination bad, he had been rightly awarded compensation by the Single Bench instead of reinstatement. 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. Pending applications also stand disposed of. (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No not termination bad, he had been rightly awarded compensation by the Single Bench instead of reinstatement. We do not find any illegality in the order of the Single Bench warranting interference in SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.07.23 11:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document