CWP-11996-2015 & connected cases 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (237) CWP-11996-2015 Date of Decision : August 05, 2025 Municipal Council, Abohar, District Fazilka and another .. Petitioners Versus Mukh Ram and others .. Respondents (2) CWP-12010-2015 Municipal Council, Abohar, District Fazilka and another .. Petitioners Versus Lekh Raj and others .. Respondents (3) CWP-14132-2015 Municipal Council, Abohar, District Fazilka and another .. Petitioners Versus Pargat Singh and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present: Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate and Mr. Saksham Khunger, Advocate, for the petitioners in all writ petitions. Mr. Arshnoor Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Kanav Singla, AAG, Punjab. HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL) 1. By this common order, three writ petitions, the details of which HARSHA RANI 2025.08.08 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11996-2015 & connected cases 2 have been given in the heading, are being disposed of as all these petitions involve the same question of law on similar facts. 2. In the present bunch of writ petitions, the challenge is to the Award dated 02.04.2014 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Labour Court by which after holding that the termination of the services of the respondent- workmen were in contravention of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1947 Act’) rather than granting the benefit of reinstatement in service, a compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- has been directed to be paid along with 6% interest. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners argues that in the present case, nothing has come on record qua contravention of provisions of 1947 Act as the respondents-employees have not been able to prove that they had worked for 240 days continuously in a calender year preceding their termination even being on contractual basis and therefore, recording of such a finding that Section 25-F of the 1947 Act was required to be complied with, which provision has not been complied with by the petitioners, is incorrect hence, the impugned Award dated 02.04.2014 (Annexure P-10) may kindly be set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-workmen submits that as per the data given by the respondents themselves in paragraph 6 of the writ petition, the number of days respondent-workman has rendered service has been stipulated, wherein, for the period starting from 16.01.2007 till 16.07.2008, the respondent-workmen have been stated to be continuously working, which shows that required criteria of completing 240 days in service in a calender year preceding termination has been fulfilled so as to avail the benefit of 1947 Act. HARSHA RANI 2025.08.08 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11996-2015 & connected cases 3 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-workmen further submits that once the petitioners are conceding the said fact even in the writ petition, the challenge to the finding recorded by the Labour Court that the respondent-workmen have fulfilled the criteria of 240 days in service prior to the date of their termination of services and that Section 25-F of the 1947 Act was not complied with, is incorrect and frivolous. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. 6. Once, the master and servant relationship with the respondent- workmen has been accepted by the petitioners, the onus is on the petitioners to point out as to for what period the respondent-workmen have rendered their duties in case, any objection is taken qua the fact that the respondent- workmen have not completed 240 days in service in a calender year prior to termination. 7. Further, in the writ petition, in paragraph 6, the following chart has been given qua the service period of the respondent-workmen which is reproduced hereunder for the ready reference. Office Order No. Date Date of Joining Date of relieving 11 19.04.2005 19.04.2005 18.10.2005 87 31.10.2005 01.11.2005 10.01.2007 36 11.07.2006 11.07.2006 10.01.2007 89 16.01.2007 16.01.2007 15.07.2007 59 13.07.2007 16.07.2007 15.01.2008 9 17.01.2008 17.01.2008 16.07.2008 8. A bare perusal of the above chart would show that the respondent-workmen starting from 16.01.2007 worked in service upto 16.07.2008, which shows that the service period of respondent-workmen in a preceding year prior to termination period is concededly more than 240 days. HARSHA RANI 2025.08.08 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11996-2015 & connected cases 4 9. Nothing has been brought on record to show the Court that during this period the respondent-workmen remained absent or did not perform the duties. No such evidence brought on record has been shown to this Court to challenge the findings of the Labour Court that the respondent- workmen never completed 240 days in service in the preceding 12 months prior to the passing of the order of termination. 10. No other argument was raised. 11. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, as no perversity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the impugned Award dated 02.04.2014 (Annexure P-10) qua the facts and evidence brought on record, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 12. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. 13. Civil miscellaneous application pending if any, also stands disposed of. 13. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected cases. August 05, 2025 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) harsha JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No HARSHA RANI 2025.08.08 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document