CWP No.26744 of 2025 and connected cases IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT SATYENDER KUMAR MAHATO PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL COURT, PANIPAT AND ANOTHER SUNIL KUMAR PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL COURT, PANIPAT AND ANOTHER GARJAN SINGH PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL COURT, PANIPAT AND ANOTH SUNIL KUMAR PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL COURT, PANIPAT AND ANOTHER CWP No.26744 of 2025 and connected cases -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH SATYENDER KUMAR MAHATO Versus PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL COURT, PANIPAT AND ANOTHER SUNIL KUMAR PATHAK Versus PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL COURT, PANIPAT AND ANOTHER GARJAN SINGH Versus PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL COURT, PANIPAT AND ANOTHER SUNIL KUMAR Versus PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL COURT, PANIPAT AND ANOTHER CWP No.26744 of 2025 and connected cases IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.26744 of 2025 ....PETITIONER PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR ....RESPONDENTS CWP No.26745 of 2025 ....PETITIONER PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR ....RESPONDENTS CWP No.26746 of 2025 ....PETITIONER PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR ....RESPONDENTS CWP No.26846 of 2025 ....PETITIONER PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR ....RESPONDENTS Date of Decision: 03.09.2026 CWP No.26744 of 2025 ....PETITIONER LABOUR ....RESPONDENTS CWP No.26745 of 2025 ....PETITIONER LABOUR ....RESPONDENTS CWP No.26746 of 2025 ....PETITIONER LABOUR ....RESPONDENTS CWP No.26846 of 2025 ....PETITIONER LABOUR ....RESPONDENTS Date of Decision: 03.09.2026 SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.09.08 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.26744 of 2025 and connected cases CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. for the petitioner(s) (in all the connected cases). Mr. Chirag Wadhwa, DAG, Haryana, (in all the connected cases). Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2 (in all the connected cases). KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. By this common order, CWP No.26745 of 2025 (Sunil Kumar Pathak Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal and another), CWP No.26746 of 2025 (Garjan Singh Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal No.26846 of 2025 (Sunil Kumar Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum-Labour Court, Panipat and another) are also being decided, as all the connected petitions raise a common question regarding the relief to be granted upon a finding of violation of Section 25 Act, 1947, arising out of Awards dated 24.04.2025 passed by the same learned Tribunal. For the sake of convenience, the facts have been taken from CWP No.26744 of 2025. 2. The p of the Constitution of India for quashing/modification of the Award dated 24.04.2025 (Annexure P Industrial Tribunal 2021, to the limited extent it awards a lump sum compensation of Rs.40,000/- in lieu of reinstatement, and for a direction to respondent No.2 to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity and full back wages, along with consequ CWP No.26744 of 2025 and connected cases -2- CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Mr. Harman Bir Singh Juneja, Advocate, for the petitioner(s) (in all the connected cases). Mr. Chirag Wadhwa, DAG, Haryana, (in all the connected cases). Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2 (in all the connected cases). **** SINGH, J. (ORAL) By this common order, CWP No.26745 of 2025 (Sunil Kumar Pathak Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal and another), CWP No.26746 of 2025 (Garjan Singh Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat and another) and CWP No.26846 of 2025 (Sunil Kumar Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal Labour Court, Panipat and another) are also being decided, as all the connected petitions raise a common question regarding the relief to be ranted upon a finding of violation of Section 25 Act, 1947, arising out of Awards dated 24.04.2025 passed by the same learned Tribunal. For the sake of convenience, the facts have been taken from CWP No.26744 of 2025. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing/modification of the Award dated 24.04.2025 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.1 Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat, in P. 2021, to the limited extent it awards a lump sum compensation of in lieu of reinstatement, and for a direction to respondent No.2 to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity and full back wages, along with consequential and other reliefs. CWP No.26744 of 2025 and connected cases CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Harman Bir Singh Juneja, Advocate, for the petitioner(s) (in all the connected cases). Mr. Chirag Wadhwa, DAG, Haryana, Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2 (in all the connected cases). By this common order, CWP No.26745 of 2025 (Sunil Kumar Pathak Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat and another), CWP No.26746 of 2025 (Garjan Singh Vs. Presiding Officer, Court, Panipat and another) and CWP No.26846 of 2025 (Sunil Kumar Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal- Labour Court, Panipat and another) are also being decided, as all the connected petitions raise a common question regarding the relief to be ranted upon a finding of violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, arising out of Awards dated 24.04.2025 passed by the same learned Tribunal. For the sake of convenience, the facts have been taken resent writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing/modification of the Award dated 3) passed by respondent No.1-Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Panipat, in P. Reference No.52 of 2021, to the limited extent it awards a lump sum compensation of in lieu of reinstatement, and for a direction to respondent No.2 to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity and full back wages, along By this common order, CWP No.26745 of 2025 (Sunil Kumar Labour Court, Panipat and another), CWP No.26746 of 2025 (Garjan Singh Vs. Presiding Officer, Court, Panipat and another) and CWP - Labour Court, Panipat and another) are also being decided, as all the connected petitions raise a common question regarding the relief to be F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, arising out of Awards dated 24.04.2025 passed by the same learned Tribunal. For the sake of convenience, the facts have been taken resent writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing/modification of the Award dated Presiding Officer, Reference No.52 of 2021, to the limited extent it awards a lump sum compensation of in lieu of reinstatement, and for a direction to respondent No.2 to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity and full back wages, along SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.09.08 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.26744 of 2025 and connected cases 3. Briefly stated, as per the pleaded case of the petitioner, is that he was engaged as a Head Driver with respondent No.2 in the month of March, 2019, on a last drawn monthly salary of Rs.11,518/ ESI/PF deductions his salary every month from March, 2019 to October, 2020. It is further his case that on 21.10.2020, he was orally terminated from service, without any notice, charge was denied re lodged a complaint before the Labour Inspector, Sonepat, on 10.11.2020, followed by a demand notice dated 15.01.2021, whereafter the dispute was referred to respondent No.1 and registered as P. Reference No.52 of 2021. 4. Vide the impugned Award dated 24.04.2025 (Annexure P the learned Tribunal, on the basis of the admission made by the management's own witness in cross worked continuously for more than 240 days preceding his termination, and in the absence of any proof of recall/re issued to him, held that the termination of the petitioner was in violation of Section 25-F of the Indus law laid down in 641, and Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board, 2009(3) SCT 790 automatic consequence of a finding of violation of Section 25 regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs.40,000/ months, failing which to car CWP No.26744 of 2025 and connected cases -3- Briefly stated, as per the pleaded case of the petitioner, is that he was engaged as a Head Driver with respondent No.2 in the month of March, 2019, on a last drawn monthly salary of Rs.11,518/ ESI/PF deductions, and that a sum of Rs.3,000/ his salary every month from March, 2019 to October, 2020. It is further his case that on 21.10.2020, he was orally terminated from service, without any notice, charge-sheet, enquiry or payment of r was denied re-entry into the workplace. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the Labour Inspector, Sonepat, on 10.11.2020, followed by a demand notice dated 15.01.2021, whereafter the dispute was d to respondent No.1 and registered as P. Reference No.52 of 2021. Vide the impugned Award dated 24.04.2025 (Annexure P the learned Tribunal, on the basis of the admission made by the management's own witness in cross-examination that the petitione worked continuously for more than 240 days preceding his termination, and in the absence of any proof of recall/re-employment notices having been issued to him, held that the termination of the petitioner was in violation of F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, relying upon the law laid down in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Man Singh, 2012(1) SCT Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board, 2009(3) SCT 790, the learned Tribunal held that reinstatement is automatic consequence of a finding of violation of Section 25 regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs.40,000/- in lieu of reinstatement, payable within two months, failing which to carry interest @ 6% per annum. CWP No.26744 of 2025 and connected cases Briefly stated, as per the pleaded case of the petitioner, is that he was engaged as a Head Driver with respondent No.2 in the month of March, 2019, on a last drawn monthly salary of Rs.11,518/-, inclusive of , and that a sum of Rs.3,000/- was illegally deducted from his salary every month from March, 2019 to October, 2020. It is further his case that on 21.10.2020, he was orally terminated from service, without any sheet, enquiry or payment of retrenchment compensation, and entry into the workplace. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the Labour Inspector, Sonepat, on 10.11.2020, followed by a demand notice dated 15.01.2021, whereafter the dispute was d to respondent No.1 and registered as P. Reference No.52 of 2021. Vide the impugned Award dated 24.04.2025 (Annexure P-3), the learned Tribunal, on the basis of the admission made by the examination that the petitioner had worked continuously for more than 240 days preceding his termination, and employment notices having been issued to him, held that the termination of the petitioner was in violation of trial Disputes Act, 1947. However, relying upon the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Man Singh, 2012(1) SCT Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board, , the learned Tribunal held that reinstatement is not the automatic consequence of a finding of violation of Section 25-F, and, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, awarded a lump sum in lieu of reinstatement, payable within two ry interest @ 6% per annum. Briefly stated, as per the pleaded case of the petitioner, is that he was engaged as a Head Driver with respondent No.2 in the month of , inclusive of was illegally deducted from his salary every month from March, 2019 to October, 2020. It is further his case that on 21.10.2020, he was orally terminated from service, without any etrenchment compensation, and entry into the workplace. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the Labour Inspector, Sonepat, on 10.11.2020, followed by a demand notice dated 15.01.2021, whereafter the dispute was 3), the learned Tribunal, on the basis of the admission made by the r had worked continuously for more than 240 days preceding his termination, and employment notices having been issued to him, held that the termination of the petitioner was in violation of trial Disputes Act, 1947. However, relying upon the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Man Singh, 2012(1) SCT Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board, not the F, and, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, awarded a lump sum in lieu of reinstatement, payable within two SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.09.08 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.26744 of 2025 and connected cases 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the learned Tribunal itself returned a finding that the termination of the petitioner was illegal and in violation of Section 25 reinstatement with full back wages ought to have followed as a matter of course. It is further submitted that, in any event, the compensation of Rs.40,000/- awarded in lieu of reinstatement is wholly disproportionate to the petitioner's length of service an enhanced in terms of the principle of proportionality laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1198 of 2025 compensation Rs.1.5 lakh for every completed year of service, pro 6. Per contra, learned State counselopposes the prayer made in the present writ petition. Learned counsel for respon respondent-management has already paid the amount so awarded. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. It is well settled that reinstatement with full back wages is not the inevitable or automatic con Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is one of the reliefs open to the Tribunal, to be moulded having regard to the facts of the case, including the nature and manner of engagement, the length of s mode of termination. The learned Tribunal, in the present case, has assigned cogent reasons, with reference to Singh (supra) Board (supra) lieu thereof. This Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under CWP No.26744 of 2025 and connected cases -4- Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the learned Tribunal itself returned a finding that the termination of the petitioner was illegal and in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, einstatement with full back wages ought to have followed as a matter of course. It is further submitted that, in any event, the compensation of awarded in lieu of reinstatement is wholly disproportionate to the petitioner's length of service and last drawn wages, and is liable to be enhanced in terms of the principle of proportionality laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amit Kumar Dubey Vs. M.P.P.K.V.V. Co. Ltd., Civil Appeal No.1198 of 2025, decided on 29.01.2025, whereunder compensation in lieu of reinstatement has been computed at the rate of Rs.1.5 lakh for every completed year of service, pro Per contra, learned State counselopposes the prayer made in the present writ petition. Learned counsel for respon management has already paid the amount so awarded. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is well settled that reinstatement with full back wages is not the inevitable or automatic consequence of every finding of violation of F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is one of the reliefs open to the Tribunal, to be moulded having regard to the facts of the case, including the nature and manner of engagement, the length of s mode of termination. The learned Tribunal, in the present case, has assigned cogent reasons, with reference to Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Man Singh (supra) and Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board (supra), for declining reinstatement and awarding compensation in lieu thereof. This Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under CWP No.26744 of 2025 and connected cases Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the learned Tribunal itself returned a finding that the termination of the petitioner was F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, einstatement with full back wages ought to have followed as a matter of course. It is further submitted that, in any event, the compensation of awarded in lieu of reinstatement is wholly disproportionate to d last drawn wages, and is liable to be enhanced in terms of the principle of proportionality laid down by the Amit Kumar Dubey Vs. M.P.P.K.V.V. Co. Ltd., , decided on 29.01.2025, whereunder in lieu of reinstatement has been computed at the rate of Rs.1.5 lakh for every completed year of service, pro-rata for any part thereof. Per contra, learned State counselopposes the prayer made in the present writ petition. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the management has already paid the amount so awarded. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is well settled that reinstatement with full back wages is not sequence of every finding of violation of F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is one of the reliefs open to the Tribunal, to be moulded having regard to the facts of the case, including the nature and manner of engagement, the length of service and the mode of termination. The learned Tribunal, in the present case, has assigned Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Man Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing ing reinstatement and awarding compensation in lieu thereof. This Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the learned Tribunal itself returned a finding that the termination of the petitioner was F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, einstatement with full back wages ought to have followed as a matter of course. It is further submitted that, in any event, the compensation of awarded in lieu of reinstatement is wholly disproportionate to d last drawn wages, and is liable to be enhanced in terms of the principle of proportionality laid down by the Amit Kumar Dubey Vs. M.P.P.K.V.V. Co. Ltd., , decided on 29.01.2025, whereunder in lieu of reinstatement has been computed at the rate of Per contra, learned State counselopposes the prayer made in the dent No.2 submits that the It is well settled that reinstatement with full back wages is not sequence of every finding of violation of F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is one of the reliefs open to the Tribunal, to be moulded having regard to the facts of the case, ervice and the mode of termination. The learned Tribunal, in the present case, has assigned Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Man Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing ing reinstatement and awarding compensation in lieu thereof. This Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.09.08 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.26744 of 2025 and connected cases Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, does not sit as a Court of appeal over the discretion so exercised by the learned Tribun perversity or illegality has been shown in the manner in which the said discretion has been exercised. 9. As regards the plea for enhancement of compensation on the basis of Amit Kumar Dubey Vs. M.P.P.K.V.V. Co. Ltd. judgment is distinguishable on the facts and in the context in which it was rendered. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was exercising its plenary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution and was considering the question of quantum of compensa More importantly, the interference therein arose from the uniform award of Rs 50,000/- ranged from 1 year 10 months to 7 years 7 months, witho respective tenures. That is not the position in the present case. The compensation of Rs 40,000/ consideration of the petitioner's individual period of service and last drawn wages. The amount of (supra) cannot, therefore, be treated as an inflexible formula applicable mechanically to every case. Learned counsel, despite their able assistance has not been able to show any material reflecting that th awarded is so arbitrary, unreasonable or disproportionate as to warrant interference in the limited supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, and in these circumstances no ground for enhancement is ma 10. In the connected petitions also, no material such as a comparative computation or particulars of length of service has been placed CWP No.26744 of 2025 and connected cases -5- Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, does not sit as a Court of appeal over the discretion so exercised by the learned Tribun perversity or illegality has been shown in the manner in which the said discretion has been exercised. As regards the plea for enhancement of compensation on the Amit Kumar Dubey Vs. M.P.P.K.V.V. Co. Ltd. judgment is distinguishable on the facts and in the context in which it was rendered. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was exercising its plenary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution and was considering the question of quantum of compensation, the denial of reinstatement not being in issue. More importantly, the interference therein arose from the uniform award of to ten differently placed workmen, whose periods of service ranged from 1 year 10 months to 7 years 7 months, witho respective tenures. That is not the position in the present case. The compensation of Rs 40,000/- was awarded by the learned Tribunal upon consideration of the petitioner's individual period of service and last drawn wages. The amount of Rs 1.5 lakh per year applied in (supra) cannot, therefore, be treated as an inflexible formula applicable mechanically to every case. Learned counsel, despite their able assistance has not been able to show any material reflecting that th awarded is so arbitrary, unreasonable or disproportionate as to warrant interference in the limited supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, and in these circumstances no ground for enhancement is made out. In the connected petitions also, no material such as a comparative computation or particulars of length of service has been placed CWP No.26744 of 2025 and connected cases Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, does not sit as a Court of appeal over the discretion so exercised by the learned Tribunal, and no perversity or illegality has been shown in the manner in which the said As regards the plea for enhancement of compensation on the Amit Kumar Dubey Vs. M.P.P.K.V.V. Co. Ltd. (supra), the said judgment is distinguishable on the facts and in the context in which it was rendered. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was exercising its plenary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution and was considering the question of tion, the denial of reinstatement not being in issue. More importantly, the interference therein arose from the uniform award of to ten differently placed workmen, whose periods of service ranged from 1 year 10 months to 7 years 7 months, without regard to their respective tenures. That is not the position in the present case. The was awarded by the learned Tribunal upon consideration of the petitioner's individual period of service and last drawn Rs 1.5 lakh per year applied in Amit Kumar Dubey (supra) cannot, therefore, be treated as an inflexible formula applicable mechanically to every case. Learned counsel, despite their able assistance has not been able to show any material reflecting that the compensation awarded is so arbitrary, unreasonable or disproportionate as to warrant interference in the limited supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, and in these circumstances no ground In the connected petitions also, no material such as a comparative computation or particulars of length of service has been placed Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, does not sit as a Court of al, and no perversity or illegality has been shown in the manner in which the said As regards the plea for enhancement of compensation on the , the said judgment is distinguishable on the facts and in the context in which it was rendered. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was exercising its plenary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution and was considering the question of tion, the denial of reinstatement not being in issue. More importantly, the interference therein arose from the uniform award of to ten differently placed workmen, whose periods of service ut regard to their respective tenures. That is not the position in the present case. The was awarded by the learned Tribunal upon consideration of the petitioner's individual period of service and last drawn Amit Kumar Dubey (supra) cannot, therefore, be treated as an inflexible formula applicable mechanically to every case. Learned counsel, despite their able assistance e compensation awarded is so arbitrary, unreasonable or disproportionate as to warrant interference in the limited supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, and in these circumstances no ground In the connected petitions also, no material such as a comparative computation or particulars of length of service has been placed SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.09.08 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.26744 of 2025 and connected cases before this Court to show that the lump sum compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, having regard to the concerned, is so unreasonable, arbitrary or disproportionate as to warrant interference in the limited scope of judicial review available under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 11. In view of the aforesaid, t perversity in the Awards dated 24.04.2025 passed by respondent No.1 in the present case as well as in the connected cases, warranting interference by this Court. The Awards have rightly been passed and are upheld. 12. Conse 2025, CWP No.26746 of 2025 and CWP No.26846 of 2025, being devoid of merit, stand dismissed. 13. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, in the present case as well as in the connected cases, shall also September 3, 2026 SwarnjitS CWP No.26744 of 2025 and connected cases -6- before this Court to show that the lump sum compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, having regard to the wages and tenure of the workman concerned, is so unreasonable, arbitrary or disproportionate as to warrant interference in the limited scope of judicial review available under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no infirmity or perversity in the Awards dated 24.04.2025 passed by respondent No.1 in the present case as well as in the connected cases, warranting interference by this Court. The Awards have rightly been passed and are upheld. Consequently, CWP No.26744 of 2025, CWP No.26745 of 2025, CWP No.26746 of 2025 and CWP No.26846 of 2025, being devoid of merit, stand dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, in the present case as well as in the connected cases, shall also stand disposed of. September 3, 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No CWP No.26744 of 2025 and connected cases before this Court to show that the lump sum compensation awarded by the wages and tenure of the workman concerned, is so unreasonable, arbitrary or disproportionate as to warrant interference in the limited scope of judicial review available under Articles his Court finds no infirmity or perversity in the Awards dated 24.04.2025 passed by respondent No.1 in the present case as well as in the connected cases, warranting interference by this Court. The Awards have rightly been passed and are upheld. quently, CWP No.26744 of 2025, CWP No.26745 of 2025, CWP No.26746 of 2025 and CWP No.26846 of 2025, being devoid of Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, in the present case stand disposed of. (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No before this Court to show that the lump sum compensation awarded by the wages and tenure of the workman concerned, is so unreasonable, arbitrary or disproportionate as to warrant interference in the limited scope of judicial review available under Articles his Court finds no infirmity or perversity in the Awards dated 24.04.2025 passed by respondent No.1 in the present case as well as in the connected cases, warranting interference by this quently, CWP No.26744 of 2025, CWP No.26745 of 2025, CWP No.26746 of 2025 and CWP No.26846 of 2025, being devoid of Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, in the present case SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.09.08 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document