LPA-2554-2024 (O 117 IN THE Shri Bhagwan Sector Superinte and others CORAM: HO HO Present:- Mr Mr SUDHIR SING Ch 29.08.2024 pass by respondent N lakh as lump su 2. In short ‘the Act’ short ‘the Trib holding him en consequential b award by way o vide impugned 024 (O&M) THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH Date o wan versus perintendent-I, Government Livestock HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDH HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUK Mr. Tara Chand Dhanwal, Advocat Mr. Samarth Sagar, Additional AG ***** SINGH, J. (ORAL) Challenge in the instant intra Cou passed by learned Single Judge, w dent No.1 was disposed of by directi sum payment to the appellant/work In a reference raised under the Ind e Act’), learned Industrial Tribunal e Tribunal’) had answered it in favo him entitled to be reinstated with c ntial benefits. Respondent No.1/manag way of a writ petition which, as notice gned order passed by the learned Sing p. 1 JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH LPA-2554-2024 (O&M) Date of decision: January 23, 2025 ….Appellant estock Farm, Hisar ….Respondents SUDHIR SINGH SUKHVINDER KAUR dvocate for the appellant. al AG Haryana. ourt appeal is to the order dated , whereby, the writ petition filed directing it to pay a sum of Rs.1.00 t/workman. he Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for unal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar (for n favour of the appellant/workman with continuity of service and all management had challenged the said noticed above, has been disposed of d Single Judge. 3 M) 2025 llant s ated filed .00 (for (for n d all said ed of MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.01.29 11:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment LPA-2554-2024 (O&M) p. 2 3. As is deciphered from the record, the appellant/workman had worked with the management from 1995 till 1998. He was retrenched on 01.05.1998. It was the case of the appellant that he had been retrenched without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. As noticed above, the reference had been answered in favour of the appellant. 4. While disposing of the writ petition, learned Single Judge had relied upon various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including the one in Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Science and another vs. Bikartan Das and others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 996, to hold that in order to put the litigation to rest, and keeping in view length of service and last drawn pay of the workman, it would be just and expedient to order payment of lump sum amount of Rs.1.00 lakh to the appellant/workman. 5. Vide order dated 05.11.2024, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant was that compliance of Section 17-B of the Act was not complete. So learned State counsel was directed to seek instructions. 6. Today, on resumed hearing, learned State counsel has filed an affidavit dated 23.01.2025 of Veterinary Surgeon, Sector-I, Govt. Livestock Farm, Hisar, which has been taken on record and marked as ‘A-1’ for reference. 7. A perusal of the said affidavit shows that bill for Rs.1.00 lakh was prepared and sent to the Treasury Office, Hisar for payment and the Treasury Office, Hisar issued the EPS of Rs.1.00 lakh in the name of the appellant, on 22.01.2025, but the amount could not be credited due to some pendency at Treasury level. It is further deposed therein that the said amount will be credited to the account of the appellant/workman very soon. MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.01.29 11:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment LPA-2554-2024 (O&M) p. 3 8. Admittedly, the appellant/workman had served respondent No.1 for three years i.e., from 1995 to 1998. Thus, by efflux of time and taking into consideration the service period of the appellant and wages last drawn by him at that point of time, the learned Single Judge had disposed of the writ petition, as noticed above. Therefore, no fault could be found with the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge. 9. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order, which may warrant any interference by this Court. 10. No other point has been urged. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. 11. Needless to say that if aforesaid amount of Rs.1.00 lakh is not credited to the account of the appellant, he will be at liberty to seek revival of the present appeal. 12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (SUDHIR SINGH) JUDGE (SUKHVINDER KAUR) JUDGE January 23, 2025 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.01.29 11:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment