College for Girls, Civil Lines, Ludhiana Civil Lines, Ludhiana v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Ludhiana Presiding Officer, Industrial Tr
Case Details
CWP-16895-2022 2022 (O&M) -1- 201 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH -.- CWP-16895-2022 (O&M) CWP Date of Decision : 14.07.2025 Date of Decision : Government College for Girls, Government College for Girls, Civil Lines, Ludhiana Civil Lines, Ludhiana ....Petitioner VERSUS Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Ludhiana Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Ludhiana and Another ....Respondents
Legal Reasoning
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI CORAM : HON'BLE Present: Mr. Rahul Rampal, Addl. A.G. Punjab Mr. Rahul Rampal, Addl. A.G. Punjab Mr. Rahul Rampal, Addl. A.G. Punjab for the petitioner. for the petitioner. Mr. Sharwan Sehgal, Advocate Mr. Sharwan Sehgal, Advocate For LRs of respondent No.2 For LRs of respondent No.2 (joined through V.C) (joined through V.C) -.- HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI 1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the order/award dated In the present petition, the challenge is to the order/award dated In the present petition, the challenge is to the order/award dated In the present petition, the challenge is to the order/award dated 28.02.2022 (Annexure P (Annexure P-14) passed by the Labour Court, the workman was 14) passed by the Labour Court, by which, the workman was re-instated in service along with the back wages and consequential benefits from the instated in service along with the back-wages and consequential benefits from the wages and consequential benefits from the date of termination till the death of workman on 26.10.2020, after holding that the date of termination till the death of workman on 26.10.2020, after holding that the date of termination till the death of workman on 26.10.2020, after holding that the date of termination till the death of workman on 26.10.2020, after holding that the services of the workman has wrongly been terminated. services of the workman has wrongly been terminated. services of the workman has wrongly been terminated. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Learned coun State argues that sel appearing on behalf of the petitioner – State argues that the petitioner had abandoned the job at his own will the petitioner had abandoned the job and therefore, once he had at his own will and therefore, once he had abandoned the job of his own will and thereafter he might have abandoned the job got medically unfit, and thereafter he might have got medically unfit, render the order of termination dated 25.02.2016 as the subsequent event will not render the order of termination dated 25.02.2016 as render the order of termination dated 25.02.2016 as the subsequent event will not arbitrary or illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner arbitrary or illegal. Learned counsel submits that the impugned for the petitioner submits that the impugned TRIPTI SAINI 2025.07.22 09:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-16895-2022 2022 (O&M) -2- award is contrary to the facts and the evidence that have come on record award is contrary to the facts and the evidence award is contrary to the facts and the evidence and therefore, may kindly be set aside. therefore, may kindly be set aside. 3. Sharwan Sehgal, Advocate appearing through video conferencing on Mr. Sharwan Sehgal, Advocate appearing through video conferencing on Sharwan Sehgal, Advocate appearing through video conferencing on Mr. behalf of legal representatives of respondent No.2, on the other hand, submits that the behalf of legal representatives of respondent No.2, on the other hand, submits that the behalf of legal representatives of respondent No.2, on the other hand, submits that the behalf of legal representatives of respondent No.2, on the other hand, submits that the been terminated upon the allegations of negligence toward the workman’s service has been terminated upon the allegations of negligence toward the been terminated upon the allegations of negligence toward the workman’s service duties assigned to him assigned to him and he was not having good behaviour despite repeated and he was not having a good behaviour despite repeated requests and reminders to better the same and due to the negligent work requests and reminders he had been and due to the negligent work he had been doing, the hostellers hostellers are suffering due to lack of hygiene , due to poor work on part of are suffering due to lack of hygiene, due to poor work on part of amongst the and in order to avoid any infection or spread of disease amongst the and in order to avoid any infection the workman and in order to avoid any infection hostellers, his services were terminated services were terminated. Hence, the argument that the ence, the argument of the petitioner that the respondent-workman abandoned the job workman abandoned the job of his own will and is rather of his own will is incorrect and is rather contrary to the order of termination dated 25.02.2016 contrary to the o , copy of which has been rder of termination dated 25.02.2016, copy of which has been appended as Annexure P-7. Learned counsel further appended as Annexure P submits that it is also not denied further submits that it is also not denied terminated in that the workman was appointed on 01.09.2014 and his services were terminated in that the workman was appointed on 01.09.2014 and his services that the workman was appointed on 01.09.2014 and his services February 2016, he had completed 240 days in service in a calendar year February 2016, he had complet prior to the in service in a calendar year prior to the date of termination and hence, non-compliance of Section 25 date of termination and hence, non ) of the Industrial compliance of Section 25(F) of the Industrial is very much material and therefore, the Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘1947 Act’) is very much material and therefore, the is very much material and therefore, the Disputes Act, 1947 n may kindly be upheld. award passed in favour of the workman may kindly be upheld. award passed in favour of 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record with their able assistance. with their able assistance. 5. A bare perusal of the order of termination would show that the said order A bare perusal of the order of termination would show that the said order A bare perusal of the order of termination would show that the said order A bare perusal of the order of termination would show that the said order is not an order simplicitor on the ground that the workman ha is not an order simplicitor on the ground that job, the workman has abandoned the job rather serious allegations have been levelled against the workman qua his rather serious allegations have been levelled against the workman qua his rather serious allegations have been levelled against the workman qua his rather serious allegations have been levelled against the workman qua his incompetence and negligence towards the duties. Nothing has come on record incompetence and negligence towards the dut to show ies. Nothing has come on record to show order, the allegations on the basis of which the services of order, the allegations on the basis of which the services that before passing such an order, the allegations on the basis of which the services that before passing such TRIPTI SAINI 2025.07.22 09:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-16895-2022 2022 (O&M) -3- workman were terminated were after giving due opportunity of hearing to the were terminated were proved after giving due opportunity of hearing to the after giving due opportunity of hearing to the to defend himself against such allegations. Once the allegations have been workman to defend himself against such allegations. Once the allegations have been to defend himself against such allegations. Once the allegations have been to defend himself against such allegations. Once the allegations have been made the basis of termination of services of the workman made the basis of terminatio said of services of the workman, the proving of the said allegations in a disciplinary proceeding was must, which has not been done by the in a disciplinary proceeding was must, which has not been done by the was must, which has not been done by the petitioner as nothing has been brought on the record to show that the said allegations petitioner as nothing has been brought on the record to show that the said allegations petitioner as nothing has been brought on the record to show that the said allegations petitioner as nothing has been brought on the record to show that the said allegations were proved after giving due opportunity of hearing were proved after giving due oppo to the workman by conducting a rtunity of hearing to the workman by conducting a departmental proceedings. departmental proceedings 6. of the Further, nothing has come on record to show that Section 25(F) of the Further, nothing has come on record Further, nothing has come on record was complied with even after the time of termination of the services of the 1947 Act was complied with even after the time of termination of the services of the was complied with even after the time of termination of the services of the was complied with even after the time of termination of the services of the respondent was made. Workman was appointed by the petitioner on respondent was made. .09.2014 and Workman was appointed by the petitioner on 01.09.2014 and his services were terminated in February 2016, which makes it clear that prior to the his services were terminated in February 2016, which makes it clear that prior to the his services were terminated in February 2016, which makes it clear that prior to the his services were terminated in February 2016, which makes it clear that prior to the compliance of termination the workman had worked for 240 days. The absence of compliance of termination the workman had worked for 240 days. termination the workman had worked for 240 days. Section 25 (F) of the of the 1947 Act on part of the petitioner even if it n part of the petitioner was also fatal, hence even if it is assumed that the order of termination was simplicitor. The contention which has is assumed that the order of termination was simplicitor. The contention which has is assumed that the order of termination was simplicitor. The contention which has is assumed that the order of termination was simplicitor. The contention which has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the respondent workman had been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the respondent workman had been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the respondent workman had been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the respondent workman had and is rather proved to be incorrect as per abandoned the job of his own is not correct and is rather proved to be incorrect as per and is rather proved to be incorrect as per abandoned the job the wording of the order of termination. the wording of the order of termination. 7. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, learned counsel of Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, learned counsel of Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, learned counsel of Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, learned counsel of petitioner has not been able to prove that the impugned petitioner has not been able to prove that the perverse impugned award is incorrect or perverse of a temporary to the fact or evidence brought on record or the law that the services of a temporary to the fact or evidence brought on record or the law that the service to the fact or evidence brought on record or the law that the service employee cannot be terminated on the basis of the allegations without proving the employee cannot be terminated on the basis of the allegations without proving the employee cannot be terminated on the basis of the allegations without proving the employee cannot be terminated on the basis of the allegations without proving the said allegations have same by giving due opportunity to the person against whom said allegations have same by giving due opportunity to the person against same by giving due opportunity to the person against been made. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.07.22 09:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-16895-2022 2022 (O&M) -4- 8. Keeping in view the fact that the workman has already died and he was Keeping in view the fact that the workman has already died and he was Keeping in view the fact that the workman has already died and he was Keeping in view the fact that the workman has already died and he was wages from the date of termination till he died, no already given the benefit of back-wages from the date of termination till he died, no wages from the date of termination till he died, no already given the benefit of back ground is made out to quash the impugned order dated 28.02.2022 ground is made out to quash the impugned order dated 28.02.2022 (Annexure P-14) 14). 9. 10. The present writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. The present writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. The present writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Decision
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. July 14, 2025 tripti (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE speaking : Speaking Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether speaking/non : Yes/No : Yes/No Whether reportable Whether reportable TRIPTI SAINI 2025.07.22 09:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document