Disposed¶23

Raj Kishan Sharma v. Po etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Jul 2025CWP/153/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Raj Kishan Sharma v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal-I, Faridabad (and another); CWP-153-2000 (O&M); High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh; decided 23-07-2025 by Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (oral). Keywords: enhancement of compensation; workman; termination held valid; Labour Court award dated 23.03.1995; Annexure P-14; Rs.25,000/- enhanced to Rs.50,000/-; ten years of service; charges not of serious nature; no other misconduct; respondent No.2 did not appear despite notice; petition disposed of; pending applications disposed of; not reportable.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.50,000/- (or a further Rs.25,000/- if the original amount was already paid); pending application(s), if any, disposed of. ¶23

Raj Kishan Sharma Vs Po etc. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

215 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CWP-153-2000 (O&M) Date of Decision : 23-07-2025

¶3

RAJ KISHAN SHARMA ........Petitioner

¶4

VERSUS

¶5

PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT-CUM-INDUSTRIAL RIBUNAL-I, FARIDABAD AND ANR.

¶6

........Respondent(s)

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

¶8

Present: Mr. A.P. Bhandari, Advocat e with Ms. Bhargavi, Advocate for t he petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Kamal Chaudhary, Adv o cate for the respondent.

¶10

¶11

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral)

¶12

In the present petition, the challenge is to the award d a ted 23.03.19 9 5, copy of which has been app e nded as Annexure P-14 by wh i ch, though t h e termination of the services o f the petitioner-Workman was h eld to be valid, but keeping in view the nu m ber of years of service rendere d by the petiti o ner coupled with the fact th a t allegations alleged against the petitione r were not of a serious nature a nd proved, a compensation to the tune of R s .25,000/- was awarded.

¶13

Learned counsel for the pe t itioner submits that the petiti o ner will be s a tisfied in case the amount of compensation is enhanced keepin g in

¶14

SAPNA GOYAL 2025.07.25 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

CWP-153-2000 (O&M)

¶16

-2-

¶17

view the fact that the petitioner has worked for a period of more than 10 years with the respondent-authority.

¶18

Notice was issued to the respondent No.2 but no one has appeared on their behalf.

¶19

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the present case with his able assistance.

¶20

Once, there is no challenge to the award dated 23.03.1995(Annexure P-14) and the award of compensation by the Labour Court to be paid by the employer, the only which question arises for consideration is whether there is a need to enhance the amount of compensation awarded to petitioner-Workman in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶21

Once, it is a conceded fact that the petitioner-Workman has worked for a period of 10 years coupled with the fact that the charges alleged and proved against the petitioner-Workman are not of serious nature and no other misconduct was done on the part of the petitioner-Workman,

¶22

the compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- vide award dated 23.03.1995 (Annexure P-14) is enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. In case, the sum of Rs.25,000/has not been paid so far, the petitioner will get Rs.50,000/- and in case, Rs.25,000/- has been paid, the petitioner will be held entitled for an another amount of Rs.25,000/-.

¶23

The present petition is disposed of in the above terms. 8. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

¶24

23-07-2025 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) Sapna Goyal JUDGE

¶25

NOTE: Whether speaking: YES Whether reportable: NO

¶26

SAPNA GOYAL 2025.07.25 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Raj Kishan Sharma v. Po etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kishan Sharma v. Po etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Punjab State Aids Control Society Vs Board of Trustees Th. Its Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Anr.

Balbir Singh Puri Vs Polc Ut Chd & Anr.

Dharminder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board Vs Sahab Singh and Others

Sumit Sharma Vs State of Punjab and Others

Rama Nand Vs P.O.Labour Court etc.