The General Manager Telecom Bathinda (Punjab) Earlier Known As General Manager, Patiala v. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court-Ii, And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CM-5274-LPA-2025 & CM-5272-LPA-2025 in/and LPA-2101-2025 (O&M) Date of decision :22.07.2025 The General Manager Telecom Patiala ... Appellant

Versus

Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court-II and Another

...Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA

Present:

Ms. Manreet Kaur, Advocate and Ms. Simran Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. **** Anupinder Singh Grewal, J. (Oral) CM-5274-LPA-2025 This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 67 days in preferring the appeal.

Heard.

For the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed and delay of 67 days in preferring the appeal is condoned. CM-5272-LPA-2025 This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 71 days in refiling the appeal. Heard.

For the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed and delay of 71 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.

LPA-2101-2025 The appellant

 


 
 
  


 
 

  !" # 

 
 ## 
  
 
$ %

%


 & 
   &#   
   
  

#     $   %

## %& 



 
  
 
  
     $ %

%


    &

      

 &#  '(# %&
 

#    ) *   +
 #     


 ##   
##

,-

   .)"/01


2*
 #%





#

   & 





 

 &  !).#   ##



$ %

%

 

   & 
$ %

%


  
##

#
  &# 

 % .)3

  & 

 % 
%

   #

# #

 % 

%   !456 56 
 7 %

8#% 9 % 
&    & 

+
$ %

%


  


   # &


    &  

    

   +
     $ %

%

   "   
  
## # 

  # 
 
 

&#% 

   
&


 
$ %

%

:



 &#  .)3
 % #  
   '(# %&

&
       %   ! 

 
%# &

%

 
 

 

   
      

 


  # #  

  & 

## &
 

  &   %

 7 
%

 

   #



%

& %


  &    &#      & 

+


 :

 
 ;% &  #

% 
 %  <0 "33. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgments that the ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with full back wages, when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied mechanically in all cases. While that may be a position where services of a regular/permanent workman are terminated illegally and/or mala fide and/or by way of victimisation, unfair labour practice, etc. However, when it comes to the case of termination of a daily-wage worker and where the termination is found illegal because of a procedural defect, namely, in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is consistent in taking the view that in such cases reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and instead the workman should be given monetary compensation which will meet the ends of justice. Rationale for shifting in this direction is obvious. 34.

The reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is trite law that when the termination is found to be illegal because of nonpayment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, even after reinstatement, it is always open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment compensation. Since such a workman was working on dailywage basis and even after he is reinstated, he has no right to seek regularisation [see State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3)17]. Thus when he cannot claim regularisation and he has no right to continue even as a daily-wage worker, no useful purpose is going to be served in reinstating such a workman and he can be given monetary compensation by the Court itself inasmuch as if he is terminated again after reinstatement, he would receive monetary compensation only in the form of retrenchment compensation and notice pay."

+
;% & 
 



5%# 6
    
%# &

%

 ;% &
  
  

 



 

,

=% 



 &
##



& 9#  & %## 56
  #   (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) 22.07.2025 JUDGE Sapna Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No