State of Hry. v. Ajit Kumar & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC12 May 2025CWP/10755/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWP-10755-2005 (O&M); State of Haryana v. Ajit Kumar and another; retrenchment; Section 25-F Industrial Dispute Act 1947; retrenchment compensation; demand draft dated 30.05.1998; retrenchment order dated 31.05.1998; acceptance on 09.06.1998; Annexure R-1/1; Annexure P/6; Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Ambala; award dated 22.02.2005 set aside as perverse; Section 17-B amounts not recoverable; reinstatement challenge by State; decision date 12.05.2025; Harsimran Singh Sethi, J.; speaking/reasoned: Yes; reportable: No.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award dated 22.02.2005 (Annexure P/6) set aside as perverse; amounts already paid to respondent No.1-workman under Section 17-B not to be recovered; final line records the petition as dismissed in above terms. ¶13-14

State of Hry. Vs Ajit Kumar & Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶13-14

Issue for consideration

Whether acceptance/delivery of the retrenchment letter dated 31.05.1998 along with the attached demand draft dated 30.05.1998 by the workman on 09.06.1998 violates Section 25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.

¶5

Court's answer

Where the retrenchment compensation was paid through a demand draft dated 30.05.1998, i.e. prior to the retrenchment of the workman's services on 31.05.1998, and the draft accompanied the retrenchment order, Section 25-F is satisfied; mere acceptance of the retrenchment letter after its issuance does not infringe the provision.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

Even if the workman's letter (Annexure R-1/1) is accepted and 09.06.1998 is taken as the date of retrenchment, the retrenchment compensation was paid on the date of retrenchment, so no infringement of the provisions of the 1947 Act is made out.

¶9

Key takeaways

No prejudice to the workman has been brought to the Court's notice; on either version of the retrenchment letter (Annexure P/1 or Annexure R-1(1)) there is no violation of Section 25-F of the 1947 Act.ratio¶11
The impugned award dated 22.02.2005 (Annexure P/6) passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Ambala is perverse to the facts and evidence on record and is accordingly set aside.ratio¶12
Any amount already paid to respondent No.1-workman under Section 17-B of the 1947 Act shall not be recovered.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Harsimran Singh Sethi, J., oral) held that compliance with Section 25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is satisfied where retrenchment compensation is tendered by a demand draft dated prior to the retrenchment order and delivered along with it; delayed acceptance of the retrenchment letter by the workman does not invalidate the retrenchment. Even taking the workman's letter (Annexure R-1/1 dated 09.06.1998) as the retrenchment date, compensation stood paid on that date and no prejudice was shown, hence no violation of Section 25-F. The award dated 22.02.2005 (Annexure P/6) of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ambala, holding the retrenchment bad, was set aside as perverse to the facts and evidence. Amounts already paid to the workman under Section 17-B were protected from recovery. The final line records the petition as dismissed in above terms, notwithstanding the setting aside of the award.

¶1

CWP-10755-2005 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

216

¶5

CWP-10755-2005 (O&M) Date of Decision :12.05.2025

State of Haryana

...Petitioner

Versus

Ajit Kumar and another

¶10

...Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

¶12

Present: Mr. Saurabh Girdhar, AAG, Haryana for the petitioner-State.

¶13

Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate with Ms. Urvashi Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶14

¶15

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

¶16

In the present petition, the challenge is by the petitioner-State to the award dated 22.02.2005 (Annexure P/6) passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Ambala, by which the retrenchment of the services of the respondent No.1-workman at the hands of petitioner-State was found to be bad on the ground that though, the benefit of retrenchment compensation was mentioned along with order of retrenchment by way of bank draft, which bank draft for the purpose of providing compensation was dated prior to the date when the respondentemployee was retrenched but the same was delivered to the respondent No.1-workman after the passing of the retrenchment order.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner-State submits that once, Section 25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as AARTI SHARMA 2025.05.14 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CWP-10755-2005 (O&M) -2-

¶19

1947 Act’) was complied with and the bank draft for the purpose of providing retrenchment compensation was attached with the retrenchment order, the retrenchment compensation was deemed to be paid at the time of retrenchment as the said letter of retrenchment was accepted by the respondent No.1-workman only on 09.06.1998 i.e. after a period of 09 days of the issuance of the retrenchment order. Hence, the reason given by the Labour Court to treat the retrenchment of respondent No.1-workman as bad so as to award him with the benefit of reinstatement in service is arbitrary and illegal and the impugned award dated 22.02.2005 (Annexure P/6) is liable to be set aside.

¶20

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1-workman submits that once, the actual delivery of the demand draft was on 09.06.1998, even if, the demand draft was prepared prior to the retrenchment of service of the workman and was made part of the retrenchment order, Section 25-F of the 1947 Act still stands violated hence, the award passed by the Labour Court is perfectly valid and legal.

¶21

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

¶22

In the present petition, the question which arises is, whether once, the retrenchment order is dated 31.05.1998 along with which, a demand draft dated 30.05.1998 qua the retrenchment compensation was attached, merely that the said retrenchment letter along with a demand draft was accepted by the respondent No.1-workman on 09.06.1998, will violate Section 25-F of the 1947 Act or not.

¶23

It may be noticed that the retrenchment compensation needs to

¶24

AARTI SHARMA 2025.05.14 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

CWP-10755-2005 (O&M) -3-

¶26

be addressed and to be given to the workman along with the order of retrenchment. In case, an employee does not accept the retrenchment order or the retrenchment order is given after the date when the retrenchment order is passed but with completing all the formalities of Section 25-F of the 1947Act, the issue arises is whether in such circumstances, the requirement of Section 25-F of the 1947 Act stands complied with or not.

¶27

It is only in case, a retrenchment order is dated 31.05.1998 and a demand draft is prepared after 09 days of retrenchment order, it can be said that the retrenchment order is without the retrenchment compensation, which is to be awarded as per the provisions of 1947 Act, but in the present case, the amount of retrenchment compensation was paid through a demand draft dated 30.05.1998 while retrenchment of the services of the respondent No.1-workman was on 31.05.1998.

¶28

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1-workman argues that the letter of retrenchment was dated 09.06.1998 (Annexure R-1/1) on which date, it was accepted by the respondent No.1-workman.

¶29

It may be noticed that even if, the said Annexure R-1/1 is accepted, then as per the aid letter, the services of the workman had been retrenched on 09.06.1998 as the same does not mention that the services are being retrenched on 31.05.1998. Hence, even if the said date is taken in account as date of retrenchment, the amount of retrenchment compensation was paid on the date of retrenchment hence, even on that score, no infringement of provisions of 1947 Act is made out.

¶30

Further, the provisions of 1947 Act have been framed for the purpose that no prejudice is caused to the workman concerned whose

¶31

AARTI SHARMA 2025.05.14 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶32

CWP-10755-2005 (O&M) -4-

¶33

services are being retrenched.

¶34

In the present case, no such prejudice has been brought to the notice of this Court even if, the order Annexure-P/1 is accepted then also the same is correct and even if Annexure R-1(1) is accepted as attached by the respondent No.1-workman then also there is no violation of the Section 25-F of the 1947 Act.

¶35

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances noticed hereinbefore, the impugned award dated 22.02.2005 (Annexure P/6) passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Ambala being perverse to the facts and evidence on record cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same is accordingly set aside.

¶36

It is made clear that any amount already paid to the respondent No.1-workman under Section 17-B of the 1947Act will not be recovered. 14. Present petition is dismissed in above terms.

¶37

May 12, 2025 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) aarti JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No

¶38

AARTI SHARMA 2025.05.14 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

State of Hry. v. Ajit Kumar & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Hry. v. Ajit Kumar & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Kumar Goyal and Others Vs M/S Hindustan Unilever Limited and Ors.

Satnam Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Balwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Sandeep Kumar Vs P.O.L.C. and Anr.

Khazan Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Desh Bhagat Polytechnic College and Anr. Vs Sarabjit Singh and Anr.