← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/2786/2001dismissed

Workman Rajesh Kumar v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court & Others

2025-07-04Mr. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Decided on :04.07.2025 WORKMAN RAJESH KUMAR . .Petitioner

Versus

PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT & OTHERS . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI PRESENT: Mr. R. S. Bains, Senior Advocate (appeared through virtual mode) with Mr. Anmoldeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents **** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral) 1.

In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned award dated 12.02.1998 (Annexure P-2) passed by the labour Court by which, the termination of the services of the petitioner-workman at the hands of respondents-management was upheld by the labour Court. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-workman argues that the services of the petitioner-workman were terminated by the respondentscompany without giving the required retrenchment compensation to the petitioner-workman as is envisaged under Section 25F of the Disputes Act, 1947 (herein after referred to the 1947 Act). 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-workman further argues that the employees juniors to the petitioner-workman were retained by the respondent-company, which action on the part of the respondent-company is causing prejudice to the petitioner-workman and has been ignored by the labour Court, hence, the impugned award dated 12.02.1998 (Annexure P-2) is contrary to the facts and evidence brought on record and the same is liable

-2to be set-aside.

4.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-workman and have gone through the case file with his able assistance. 5.

The first argument which has been raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner-workman that there has been no compliance of Section 25-F of the 1947 Act, while terminating the services of the petitioner-workman, which act on the part of the respondent-workman amounts to violation of the provisions of the 1947 Act. 6.

It may be noticed that the provision of Section 25 of the 1947 Act, can only be brought into operation in case, workman has worked for a period of 240 days    

                

    

 

  



      

         

   !   

   "   

   #  $% &'(           '

!                       )                          

 !     )    

         

-3- 

 

)           !    *  +  

             )           &'

(  , -         & .(   12.02.1998 (Annexure P-2) /" 

     0    "  (                 "       (  

 

Pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, stands disposed of.

(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE 04.07.2025 Riya Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No