The High Court reaffirmed that termination of workmen in violation of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, entitles aggrieved employees to reinstatement with continuity of service and partial back wages. By following prior Division Bench authority, the Court dismissed the State’s writ petition, confirming the judgment’s binding impact within the jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/5572/2001 of STATE OF PUNJAB Vs KESAR SINGH |
| CNR | PHHC010320922001 |
| Date of Registration | 19-04-2001 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Single Judge (MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI) |
| Precedent Value | Binding within the jurisdiction of Punjab & Haryana High Court |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms the Division Bench judgment in CWP No.18134 of 2002, Chief Engineer & Anr. v. Jarnail Singh & Anr. |
| Type of Law | Labour / Service Law – Industrial Disputes Act |
| Questions of Law | Whether termination of daily wage workmen without compliance with Sections 25-F & 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act mandates reinstatement with continuity and back wages. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The High Court reaffirmed that where termination of a workman contravenes Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, the appropriate relief is reinstatement with continuity and a portion of back wages. The Court followed its earlier Division Bench decision in Chief Engineer & Anr. v. Jarnail Singh & Anr., upholding the Labour Court’s award to that effect. Both the factual circumstances and legal issues were materially similar, and no new ground warranted a different decision. The State’s own fairness was noted in not contesting the similarity. Thus, the precedent remains binding. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Division Bench judgment in CWP No.18134 of 2002 (Chief Engineer & Anr. v. Jarnail Singh & Anr.) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Precedent set by Division Bench judgment in Chief Engineer’s case; consistent application of Section 25-F & 25-G requirements. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Workmen, employed as daily-wage Mazdoors, were terminated. The Labour Court found illegality due to non-compliance with Sections 25-F & 25-G, ordering reinstatement with continuity and 25% back wages. The State previously challenged similar awards, with those petitions being dismissed in light of Division Bench authority. |
| Citations | No neutral or SCC/AIR citations specified; reference made to CWP No.18134 of 2002, decided 15.11.2002, and CWP No.18974-2002, decided 10.02.2003. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within jurisdiction of the Punjab & Haryana High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts on similar facts and legal issues |
| Follows | Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court: CWP No.18134/2002 (Chief Engineer v. Jarnail Singh) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court reiterated that once it is conclusively established that Section 25-F and 25-G have been violated, reinstatement with continuity of service and partial back wages is the standard remedy.
- Reaffirms the principle that if a Division Bench judgment covers the issue, Single Judges are bound to follow it in materially similar cases.
- Previous unsuccessful challenges by the State on identical issues will weigh heavily; subsequent petitions are liable to be dismissed at threshold if facts are parallel.
- The order demonstrates that procedural compliance under Sections 25-F and 25-G remains a non-negotiable threshold for termination of workmen.
- Practitioners representing aggrieved workmen can cite this as binding authority for reinstatement and back wages following statutory non-compliance.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court considered the decision of the Labour Court, which found that the termination of daily wage workmen without compliance with Sections 25-F and 25-G was illegal and warranted reinstatement with service continuity and proportional back wages.
- The challenge by the State of Punjab was already dismissed in six related writ petitions based on a Division Bench judgment in Chief Engineer v. Jarnail Singh, which addressed identical questions of law and fact.
- The respondent workman argued that the present petition was also covered by the said Division Bench judgment, and this was not disputed by the State’s counsel.
- The Court, therefore, found no justification to take a view differing from the established Division Bench authority, dismissing the present writ petition on those grounds.
- The High Court followed the established precedent, reaffirming the mandatory nature of compliance with Section 25-F and Section 25-G for lawful termination of workmen.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (State of Punjab):
- Challenged the Labour Court’s award reinstating the workman with continuity and part back wages.
- Asserted that the respondent worked as a daily wage Mazdoor from 12/81 to 12/85 for 134 days, that he left of his own accord, and did not fulfill the statutory requirement of 240 days in twelve months.
- Claimed that the demand notice was served after 15 years.
Respondent (Workman):
- Contended that the matter was covered by the Division Bench judgment in Chief Engineer v. Jarnail Singh, in which identical writ petitions were dismissed and the award upheld.
- Relied on the upholding of the Labour Court’s award in related cases.
Factual Background
The dispute arose from the termination of daily wage Mazdoors engaged by the State of Punjab for road maintenance and clearing landslides. The Labour Court found their termination to be illegal due to breach of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act. The workmen were ordered to be reinstated with two years’ continuity of service and 25% back wages. The State government filed writ petitions challenging these awards; six were dismissed following Division Bench precedent, and similar arguments were raised in the present matter.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court examined the requirements under Sections 25-F (conditions precedent to retrenchment) and 25-G (procedure for retrenchment) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
- Emphasized the mandatory procedural safeguards prescribed for lawful termination/retrenchment of workmen.
- Reiterated that violation of these statutory provisions renders termination illegal, entitling the workman to reinstatement with continuity of service and appropriate back wages.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court allowed the impleadment of a new respondent in place of the deceased, limited strictly to the purpose of the writ petition, and directed appropriate tagging and record maintenance.
- No new procedural innovations altering general law were set out beyond this substitution.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing Division Bench authority affirmed and applied.
Citations
- CWP No.18134 of 2002 (Chief Engineer & Anr. v. Jarnail Singh & Anr., Punjab & Haryana High Court, decided 15.11.2002).
- CWP No.18974 of 2002, order dated 10.02.2003 (Punjab & Haryana High Court).