Haryana State Electronics Development Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation Limited. Corporation Limited v. Amit Kumar and Another Amit Kumar and Another
Case Details
CWP-21636-2018 2018 (O&M) -1- 233 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 CWP-21636-2018 (O&M) Date of Decision : 29.07.2025 Date of Decision : Haryana State Electronics Development Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation Limited. Corporation Limited. ....Petitioner VERSUS Amit Kumar and Another Amit Kumar and Another ....Respondents
Legal Reasoning
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI CORAM : HON'BLE Present: Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Kaith, Advocate for Mr. Amit Kaith, Advocate for responden -.- respondent No.1 - workman. HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI 1. the prayer of the petitioner is for setting aside the In the present petition, the prayer of the petitioner is for setting aside the the prayer of the petitioner is for setting aside the In the present petition award dated 27.03.2018 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Industrial Tribunal award dated 27.03.2018 (Annexure P cum- 6) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum ding was recorded that the services of workman has Labour Court, vide which a finding was recorded that the services of workman has ding was recorded that the services of workman has Labour Court, vide which a fin in the last wrongly been terminated despite the fact that he has completed 240 days in the last wrongly been terminated despite the fact that he has completed 240 days wrongly been terminated despite the fact that he has completed 240 days preceding 12 months of termination and Section 25 preceding 12 months of termination of the Industrial Disputes Act, and Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, by the (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the 1947 Act’) was not complied with by the (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the 1947 Act’) 1947 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the 1947 Act’) Corporation. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Learned before submits that a plea was taken before workman, who was working with the petitioner- the Labour Court that the respondent-workman, who was working with the petitioner workman, who was working with the petitioner the Labour Court that the Corporation since 09.01.2006 since 09.01.2006 has abandoned the job on 01.08.2012 and did not join has abandoned the job on 01.08.2012 and did not join further submits the duties thereafter. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Corporation further submits the duties thereafter. Learned counsel for the petitioner the duties thereafter. Learned counsel for the petitioner while passing the Award that the same has not been appreciated by the Labour Court while passing the Award that the same has not been appreciated by the Labour Court that the same has not been appreciated by the Labour Court dated 27.03.2018 (Annexure P 18 (Annexure P-6)in the correct perspective so as to hold that the in the correct perspective so as to hold that the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.02 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-21636-2018 2018 (O&M) -2- petitioner-Corporation Corporation terminated the services of the and that terminated the services of the respondent-workman and that too without complying with the Section 25-F of the 1947 Act. too without compl for the of the 1947 Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Corporation Corporation further submits that the fact on record has the fact which was brought on record has not been appreciated in the correct perspective while recording not been appreciated in the correct perspective while recording the finding against the finding against the petitioner-Corporation Corporation. Hence, the award dated 27.03.2018 (Annexure P 6) passed by 27.03.2018 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Labour Court by which a lump-sum compensation of Rs.80,000/ the Labour Court has been given compensation of Rs.80,000/- has been given workman may kindly be set aside. to the respondent-workman may kindly be set aside. to the respondent 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Learned counsel ap submits pearing on behalf of respondent-workman submits that the assertion of the petitioner the assertion of the petitioner-Corporation workman had Corporation that the respondent-workman had the job on 01.08.2012 has been proved to be incorrect as the parties in the job on 01.08.2012 has been proved to be incorrect as the parties the job on 01.08.2012 has been proved to be incorrect as the parties abandoned the job on 01.08.2012 has been proved to be incorrect as the parties and the concerned workman entered into question i.e. the petitioner-Corporation and the concerned workman entered into and the concerned workman entered into question i.e. the petitioner workman had service agreement on 08.08.2012 and hence, if the respondent-workman had service agreement on 08.08.2012 and hence, if the respondent service agreement on 08.08.2012 and hence, if the respondent abandoned the job on 01.08.2012, question of entering into service agreement abandoned the job on 01.08.2012, question of entering into service agreement abandoned the job on 01.08.2012, question of entering into service agreement on 08.08.2012 i.e. one week thereafter, does not arise 08.08.2012 i.e. one week thereafter, , which fact has correctly been does not arise, which fact has correctly been appreciated by the Labour Court so as to record the finding that it is a case of appreciated by the Labour Court so as to record the finding that it is a case of appreciated by the Labour Court so as to record the finding that it is a case of appreciated by the Labour Court so as to record the finding that it is a case of termination of service and not abandonment and lump-sum compensation termination of service and not abandonment and lump termination of service and not abandonment and lump of has been awarded while passing the award dated 27.03.2018 (Annexure Rs.80,000/- has been awarded while passing the award dated 27.03.2018 (Annexure has been awarded while passing the award dated 27.03.2018 (Annexure has been awarded while passing the award dated 27.03.2018 (Annexure P-6). 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 assi 5. Once, a finding has been recorded on a conceded fact that after Once, a finding has been recorded on a conceded fact that after Once, a finding has been recorded on a conceded fact that after Once, a finding has been recorded on a conceded fact that after , the 01.08.2012, the alleged date of abandonment of job by the respondent-workman, the 01.08.2012, the alleged date of abandonment of job 01.08.2012, the alleged date of abandonment of job parties entered into a service agreement on 08.08.2012, the question of into a service agreement on 08.08.2012, hence the question of . It cannot be said that after the abandonment of abandonment of job does not arise. It cannot be said that after the abandonment of . It cannot be said that after the abandonment of abandonment of job workman came back to enter into another service job on 01.08.2012, the respondent-workman came back to enter into another service workman came back to enter into another service job on 01.08.2012, the respondent TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.02 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-21636-2018 2018 (O&M) -3- . The service agreement with petitioner on agreement with the petitioner-Corporation. The service agreement with petitioner on . The service agreement with petitioner on agreement with the petitioner 08.08.2012 is a conceded fact even during a hearing 08.08.2012 is a conceded fact even during a hearing today. 6. That being so, the findings which have been recorded by the Labour That being so, the findings which have been recorded by the Labour That being so, the findings which have been recorded by the Labour That being so, the findings which have been recorded by the Labour Court are not perverse to the material evidence and the fact brought on record. Court are not perverse to the Till the evidence and the fact brought on record. Till the findings of the Labour Court are proved to be findings of the Labour Court are material proved to be perverse to the fact or the material the award dated 27.03.2018 evidence, this Court will not like to interfere with the award dated 27.03.2018 evidence, this Court will not like to interfere evidence, this Court will not like to interfere 6) passed by the Industrial Tribunal- (Annexure P-6) passed by the Industrial Tribunal Labour Court, especially when -cum-Labour Court, especially when only the lump-sum compensation of Rs.80,000/ has been granted. sum compensation of Rs.80,000/- has been granted. 7.
Decision
view of the above, no ground is made out and the petition is dismissed In view of the above, no ground is made out and the petition is dismissed view of the above, no ground is made out and the petition is dismissed view of the above, no ground is made out and the petition is dismissed accordingly. 8. 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 29, 2025 tripti (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE Whether speaking/non speaking : Speaking Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable Whether reportable No : No TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.02 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document