IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 17.03.2025 109 (2 cases ) CM-3377-CWP-2025 in/and CWP-22974-2011 (O&M) and THE SECRETARY DIST RED CROSS SOCIETY, KARNAL . . .Petitioners Versus THE PRESIDING OFFICER AND ORS . . . Respondents CM-3375-CWP-2025 in/and CWP-22975-2011 (O&M) THE SECRETARY DIST RED CROSS SOCIETY, KARNAL . . .Petitioners Versus THE PRESIDING OFFICER AND ORS . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI PRESENT: Mr. Shireesh Gupta, Advocate for the applicants-petitioners. Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate and Mr. B.B. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 2 in CWP No. 22974 of 2011. Mr. Chirag Wadhwa, Advocate for respondent No. 2 in CWP No. 22975 of 2011. HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) CM-3375-CWP-2025 & CM-3377-CWP-2025 Present applications have been filed for recalling the order dated 05.02.2025, by which, the present writ petitions were dismissed for non- prosecution. Notice of the application to the counsel opposite. Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 2 in CWP No. 22974 of 2011 and Mr. Chirag Wadhwa, Advocate for respondent No. 2 in SAPNA GOYAL 2025.04.24 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22974-2011 (O&M) and CWP-22975-2011 (O&M)) 2 CWP No. 22975 of 2011, accept notice on behalf of the respondent No. 2 in both cases. They raise no objection for the grant of prayer as raised in the present applications. Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which are duly supported by an affidavit, the same are allowed. Consequently, the order dated 05.02.2025 is recalled and the writ petitions are restored to its original number and status and on the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, the main writ petitions are taken up for hearing today itself. CWP-22974-2011 and CWP-22975-2011 1. By this common order, two writ petitions, the details of which have been given in the heading, are being disposed of as both the petitions involve the same question of law on similar facts. 2. In the present petition(s), the challenge is to the award(s) dated 29.12.2010 passed in favour of the respondent(s)-workmen by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court wherein, the termination of the services of the respondent(s)-workman has been held to be bad and the benefit of reinstatement alongwith continuity in service and benefit of back wages ranging from 25% to 50% has been granted. In the case of the respondent- workman Madhu, the benefit of reinstatement has been granted alongwith 50 % back-wages, whereas, in the case of respondent- Parveen Kumar, the benefit of reinstatement alongwith 25 % back-wages has been granted. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present petitions , the benefit of retrenchment compensation was given to the respondent(s)-workman but, the said benefit has been granted to them on the SAPNA GOYAL 2025.04.24 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22974-2011 (O&M) and CWP-22975-2011 (O&M)) 3 ground that their services have been wrongly terminated stating that the work of the post in question does not exist especially when, the petitioner- institute is still working and is manufacturing artificial limbs. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there are different units working with the petitioner-Red Cross Society, which are manufacturing the artificial limbs and the same were sustaining on the basis of the reimbursement which was being done by the Social Welfare department to the artificial limbs which were being prepared. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that both the respondent-workman were working in the manufacturing of collar and backbone belts for temporary handicapped persons for which, the social welfare department has decided to stop reimbursement and keeping in view the fact that the temporary handicapped patients were not being treated any further, the services of both the petitioners were become surplus and retrenched and they were granted the retrenchment compensation and then their services were terminated. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further argues that merely that the operations of the petitioners-society are continuing and the artificial limbs are being manufactured, the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the specific work being performed by the respondent-workman was no longer in existence and was not being carried, out which has resulted in passing the impugned award in favour of the respondent-workmen. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that it is also a conceded position that the respondent(s)-workman were appointed on temporary basis whereas, the award has been passed treating them the regular employees so as to grant them the benefit of reinstatement with SAPNA GOYAL 2025.04.24 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22974-2011 (O&M) and CWP-22975-2011 (O&M)) 4 continuity and the benefit of back wages. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that once the Government’s grant had stopped and the work being done by the particular- unit where the respondent(s)-workman were working, is not being undertaken any more, the direction given by the Tribunal to reinstate the respondent-workman with the benefit of continuity in service and certain percentage of back wages is liable to be set-aside. 6. Learned counsel on behalf the respondent-workman submits that once the petitioner-society is operating and artificial limbs are also still being manufactured by the petitioner-unit, merely that the grant from the Government was stopped or the benefit of reimbursement was not being extended by the Government to support the particular-unit cannot be treated as a ground to terminate the services of the respondent-workman and the Tribunal has rightly examined the issue that termination of the services of the respondent-workman was not valid and the same has rightly been set- aside while granting certain benefits to the workmen, which may kindly be upheld. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that even as of now, the mandatory provision of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( hereinafter referred as ‘1947 Act’)has not been complied with fully as Section 25F (c) of the 1947 Act, has not been complied as the information has not been given to the appropriate government with regard to the retrenchment of the respondent-workman hence, once, the section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has not been complied with, the benefits extended to the workman by the Labour Court may kindly be upheld. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone SAPNA GOYAL 2025.04.24 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22974-2011 (O&M) and CWP-22975-2011 (O&M)) 5 through the case file with their able assistance. 9. It may be noticed that the only reason to challenge the termination by the workman is that while retaining the juniors and the fact that petitioner-unit is still in operation and the artificial limbs are still being manufactured, their services have been disengaged in an arbitrary and illegal manner. It is a conceded position that the respondent-workmen were appointed for a specific purpose and they were working as a junior Brace- man and were manufacturing collar and backbone belts which has been conceded in paragraph no. 8 of the award by the workman themselves. 10. It is also a conceded fact that the manufacturing of collar and backbone belt had been stopped by the petitioner-institution as the cost of manufacturing was not being reimbursed by the Government any further. 11. The argument of the respondent-workman which has been accepted by the labour Court while granting them relief is that the petitioner- institution is still working and Artificial limbs are still being prepared. It may be noticed that there are different units of petitioner-society preparing different artificial limbs. The respondents were working in a specific unit preparing collar and backbone belts. The respondent- Parveen Kumar was manufacturing the collar and backbone belts whereas, the wrokman- Madhu was manufacturing the padding of such collar and backbone belts. On being asked to show any evidence that the said equipments i.e. collar and backbone belts are still being prepared by the petitioner-society, the learned counsel for the respondent-workman has not been able to show from the evidence brought on record that the same are still being prepared by the petitioner-society. 12. Further, with regard to the contention of the learned counsel for SAPNA GOYAL 2025.04.24 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22974-2011 (O&M) and CWP-22975-2011 (O&M)) 6 the respondent- workman that the sanction was granted by the social justice and empowerment department on 15.03.2007 with regard to the employees who were working as “Taylor’s Brace” shows that the work is still being done, it may be noticed that the said order has been passed in the year 2007, whereas the services of the petitioners were retrenched in the year 2002. Merely that for a particular “Brace”, the benefit has been granted by the Social Welfare department, the same does not mean that the reimbursement of the equipment being manufactured by the petitioner is still being done. 14. Even otherwise also, it is being disputed by the petitioner that the duties of “Taylor’s Brace” is the same as junior Braceman relating to the manufacture of collar and backbone belts. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that these two are entirely different. 15. Keeping in view the said facts and circumstances of the present case, the grant of benefit by the labour Court in favour of workman is by interpreting certain facts which are not in existence, hence, the impugned award holding that the work being performed by the respondent-workman is still being performed is perverse to the facts and evidence which has already come on record. 16. Further the labour Court has allowed the benefit on the basis that the petitioner-institute is still working and the artificial limbs are being prepared. The said fact is being admitted by the petitioner as of now. The question to be decided by the Tribunal was whether, the work being performed by the respondent-workman still exists or not. 17. Notting has been shown to this Court that any workman who was manufacturing the collar and backbone belts is still working with the petitioner-institution or the said manufacturing item is being manufactured SAPNA GOYAL 2025.04.24 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22974-2011 (O&M) and CWP-22975-2011 (O&M)) 7 and is being reimbursed by the Government. The Tribunal misdirected itself in holding that the manufacturing of Artificial limbs is equivalent to the manufacturing of the collar and backbone belts. Though, the same are part of the manufacturing the artificial limbs, but, the petitioner-units were manufacturing various other items as well, which they continued to manufacture except manufacturing collar brace and backbone belt and the workman who were working in other units, were never retrenched. Hence, the impugned award passed by the labour Court is perverse to the evidence which has come on record and cannot be sustained. 18. Further the findings have been recorded while granting the benefit of reinstatement with continuity and the benefits of certain percentage of back wages to the workman is on the ground that the workman is regular employees. A bare perusal of the appointment order of the respondent- workman would show that the services of the respondent-workman were temporary. No order regularizing the services of the respondent has been brought on record. In the absence of any such record, the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the workman were regular employees so as to grant the benefit of reinstatement in service alongwith continuity and the benefits of certain percentage of back wages is incorrect and is perverse to the evidence which has come on record and the same cannot be sustained. 19. The last argument which has been raised by learned counsel for the workmen is that even as of now, Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has not been complied with. Learned counsel for the respondents workmen submits that Section 25F (c) the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has not been complied with so far and therefore, once Section 25F (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has not been complied with, the same will SAPNA GOYAL 2025.04.24 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22974-2011 (O&M) and CWP-22975-2011 (O&M)) 8 materially effect and the benefits granted by the Tribunal to the respondent- workman needs to be upheld. For better understanding, the Section 25 (F) the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is reproduced as under- “Section 25F-Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen [25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.--No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until-- (a) the workman has been given one months notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice; (b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay 3[for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government 4[or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].” 20. It may be noticed that respondent-workman has been granted the retrenchment compensation. The only argument is that the retrenchment of workman has not been notified to the Government. Further, the reliance is being placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 1020 of 2011, titled as Raj Kumar versus Director of Education and others, decided on 13.04.2016 to hold that even if the section 25F (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not complied with, the same will be violation of the Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 21. It may be noticed that a bare perusal of judgment in Raj SAPNA GOYAL 2025.04.24 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22974-2011 (O&M) and CWP-22975-2011 (O&M)) 9 Kumar’s case (Supra), shows the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that Section 25F can be complied with even after the passing of the order of retrenchment. Relevant paragraph No. 25 of the judgment is as under:- “25. Further, even the decision in the case of Bombay Journalists (supra) does not come to the rescue of the respondents. On the issue of interpretation of Section 25F(c) of the ID Act, it was held as under: “The hardship resulting from retrenchment has been partially redressed by these two clauses, and so, there is every justification for making them conditions precedent. The same cannot be said about the requirement as to clause (c). Clause (c) is not intended to protect the interests of the workman as such. It is only intended to give intimation to the appropriate Government about the retrenchment, and that only helps the Government to keep itself informed about the conditions of employment in the different industries within its region. There does not appear to be present any compelling consideration which would justify the making of the provision prescribed by clause (c) a condition precedent as in the case of clauses (a) & (b). Therefore, having regard to the object which is intended to be achieved by clauses (a) & (b) as distinguished from the object which clause (c) has in mind, it would not be unreasonable to hold that clause (c), unlike clauses (a) & (b), is not a condition precedent.” (emphasis laid by this Court) SAPNA GOYAL 2025.04.24 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22974-2011 (O&M) and CWP-22975-2011 (O&M)) 10 Thus, this Court read the ID Act and the relevant Rules thereunder together and arrived at the conclusion that Section 25F(c) is not a condition precedent for retrenchment. By no stretch of imagination can this decision be said to have held that there is no need for industries to comply with this condition at all. At the most, it can be held that Section 25F(c) is a condition subsequent, but is still a mandatory condition required to be fulfilled by the employers before the order of retrenchment of the workman is passed. This Court in the case of Mackinon Mackenzie & Company Ltd. v. Mackinnon Employees Union5 held as under: “Further, with regard to the provision of Section 25F Clause (c), the Appellant-Company has not been able to produce cogent evidence that notice in the prescribed manner has been served by it to the State Government prior to the retrenchment of the concerned workmen. Therefore, we have to hold that the Appellant-Company has not complied with the conditions precedent to retrenchment as per Section 25F Clauses (a) and (c) of the I.D. Act which are mandatory in law.” In the instant case, the relevant rules are the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. Rule 76 of the said Rules reads as under: “76. Notice of retrenchment.- If any employer desires to retrench any workman employed in his industrial establishment who has been in continuous service for not SAPNA GOYAL 2025.04.24 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22974-2011 (O&M) and CWP-22975-2011 (O&M)) 11 less than one year under him (hereinafter referred to as 'workman' in this rule and in rules 77 and 78), he shall give notice of such retrenchment as in Form P to the Central Government, the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) and the Employment Exchange concerned and such notice shall be served on that Government, the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), and the Employment Exchange concerned by registered post in the following manner :- (a) where notice is given to the workman, notice of retrenchment shall be sent within three days from the date on which notice is given to the workman; (emphasis laid by this Court) Rule 76(a) clearly mandates that the notice has to be sent to the appropriate authorities within three days from the date on which notice is served on the workman. In the instant case, the notice of retrenchment was served on the appellant on Page 29 29 07.01.2003. No evidence has been produced on behalf of the respondents to show that notice of the retrenchment has been sent to the appropriate authority even till date.” Even if, as of now, section 25F (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has not been complied with, the direction can be given to notify the same to the appropriate Government especially when all the retrenchment compensation as per sections 25F (a) and 25 F (b) have already been granted in favour of the workman. SAPNA GOYAL 2025.04.24 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22974-2011 (O&M) and CWP-22975-2011 (O&M)) 12 22. Merely that the Government was not notified, the same will not entitle the respondent-workman to claim reinstatement in service especially when their appointment was on temporary basis and the work being performed by them does not exist with the petitioner-society even as of now. 23. Let the appropriate Government be notified with regard to the retrenchment of the respondent-workmen if not already done, as, nothing has been brought on record even qua the said violation in the award as the said argument has only been raised during the hearing of the present petition. 24. Keeping in view the above, as the award(s) passed by the Tribunal is perverse to the facts and evidence brought on record and cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set-aside. 25. However, it may be noticed, the award was stayed by this Court while issuing notice of motion in these writ petitions and the respondent- workman were granted the benefit of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Any amount which the respondent-workman has already got under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 will not be recovered as the same belongs to the employee concerned. 26. Present petitions are allowed in above terms. 27. Pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, stands disposed of with the above observation. 28. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE 17.03.2025 Riya Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No SAPNA GOYAL 2025.04.24 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document