State Of Punjab v. Ram Sarup & ANR

     

 



  
 

 !

"#

!$%&%"'() ) *

+

 



 


















 + 

 









 

(

 , - ) +


 

+-   
  

 




   

 






 

 

+-

.

)

/0 
!

 "
 

 
  #

$$%&$$'


( 

) 
 
*"
"
 

+


,-.,,,
/0 
123
+ 4
5
( 

 +  
  

 


+ * $ !
5
( 
4
 "
+ 
,-.,,, /0 
123

  

 

+ *
+
.-6
 * +" 
!
+ *
 
$

,7%


+

 

-$,7,
!
5
( 


 "
+
 ,-.,,,
/0 
123
8 !
5
( 

  

 

+ *
+

 .-6
 *
+" 
!
+ *
+
  

-$,7,
! 5
( 


+

,-.,,,
"
 4

 
 8.
4
 



  

$.
4
 


 +
 

+4
!
"
+   

4
 + *

 

 
'19

)   #



 
,2'
/

 
:,2'
 ;3
 "

  4



"   #
+
 
'19

,2'
  2 5 

 #





 




# 
  
4

+ 
. <
+
 
#   #




  



#


( 


# 


  
6.

In Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal vs. Santosh Kumar Seal and others, (2010) 6 SCC 773, Hari Nandan Prasad and another vs. Employer I/R to Management of Food Corporation of India and another, (2014) 7 SCC 190, District Development Officer and another vs. Satish Kantilal Amrelia, (2018) 12 SCC 298, State of Uttarakhand and another vs. Raj Kumar (2019) 14 SCC 353 and Ranbir Singh vs. Executive Engineer PWD (2021) 14 SCC 815 Supreme Court has held that it is neither mandatory nor automatic to reinstate workman who has been retrenched without complying with provisions of Section 25F of 1947 Act. 7.

Keeping in mind afore-cited judgments of Supreme Court and to put the litigation to rest, this Court considering the last drawn pay of the workman; efflux of time; order of back wages and compliance of Section 17-B of 1947 Act, deems it appropriate to direct the Management

to pay a sum of ₹1 lakh as lump sum payment to the workman. 7 



 
   ,  "





# / 3

4
##
# 




 

+- 

  -,$-$2
 =

*"&   > &