Disposed¶20

Balraj Singh v. Zonal Manager and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Aug 2025CWP/15883/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Balraj Singh v. Zonal Manager and Ors., CWP-15883-2019, High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, decided 11.08.2025 (Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J., oral) — part-time employee; termination of services; claim for regularization rejected in 2016 selection process; compliance with Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 not pleaded; disputed questions of fact; writ jurisdiction declined; liberty to approach Labour Court; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to an alternative remedy before the Labour Court; in the event of a reference being filed, the Labour Court to endeavour to decide the matter expeditiously and in accordance with law. ¶20

Balraj Singh Vs Zonal Manager and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Conflicting claims regarding the petitioner's claim for regularization and the mode of his dis-engagement. +2 more

¶13

Ratio / Principle

The petition raises disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

¶20

Key takeaways

The vital sequences, facts and pleadings being amiss, the same cannot be presumed by this Court; counsel for the petitioner was unable to respond satisfactorily for want of input from the petitioner.ratio¶19
The petition is disposed of at this stage, with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to an alternative remedy before the Labour Court.ratio¶20
In the event of the petitioner filing a reference before the Labour Court, the said Court shall endeavour to decide the matter expeditiously and in accordance with law.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J., oral) disposed of CWP-15883-2019 filed by Balraj Singh against the Zonal Manager and others concerning his claim for regularization and the mode of dis-engagement/termination of his part-time services. The respondents' case was that the petitioner's regularization claim was considered with similarly placed persons and rejected on merit, the posts being filled by persons higher in merit, and the selection process was not under challenge. Counsel could not explain why the petitioner continued working till 2019 despite completion of the 2016 appointment process, nor plead compliance with the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 prior to termination. Holding that the petition raised disputed questions of fact incapable of determination in writ jurisdiction, the Court disposed of it with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Labour Court, directing that any reference be decided expeditiously and in accordance with law (decision dated 11.08.2025).

¶1

218 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

¶3

CWP-15883-2019 Date of Decision: 11.08.2025

¶4

BALRAJ SINGH ...PETITIONER

¶5

Vs.

¶6

ZONAL MANAGER AND ORS.

¶7

...RESPONDENTS

¶8

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ

¶9

Present:Mr. Buta Singh Bairagi Advocate for the petitioner(s).

¶10

Mr. I. P. Singh, Advocate (through video conferencing) for the respondents No.1 and 2.

¶11

¶12

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)

¶13

Conflicting claims have been raised with respect to claim for regularization as well as to the mode of dis-engagement of the petitioner.

¶14

While the petitioner contends that his services were arbitrarily terminated by the respondents notwithstanding the mandate of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, learned counsel for the respondents contends that even though, undisputedly the petitioner was working on part-time basis with the respondents, however, his claim for regularization was considered along with other similarly placed persons and having not been found suitable, his candidature was rejected. All posts were filled up in the said process by appointment of persons higher in merit and that the said order or selection process is not under challenge.

¶15

He, however, is not in a position to refer to the

¶16

RAHUL JOSHI 2025.08.21 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, CHD

¶17

CWP-15883-2019

¶18

-2-

¶19

circumstances and background, under which, despite the completion of the appointment process in the year 2016, the petitioner continued to discharge functions till 2019. He is also not in a position to confirm whether prior to termination of the petitioner’s services, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were complied with or not. No such corresponding pleading or averments have been raised in the writ petition. The vital sequences, facts and pleadings being amiss, the same cannot be presumed by this Court. Counsel for the petitioner is unable to respond satisfactorily to the queries for want of input from the petitioner.

¶20

The petition in question thus raises disputed questions of fact, which cannot be gone into by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The present petition is accordingly disposed of at this stage, with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to an alternative remedy before the Labour Court.

¶21

In the event of the petitioner filing a reference before the Labour Court, the said Court shall endeavour to decide the matter expeditiously and in accordance with law.

¶22

(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) JUDGE

¶23

11.08.2025

¶24

Rahul Joshi

¶25

Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶26

RAHUL JOSHI 2025.08.21 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, CHD

Balraj Singh v. Zonal Manager and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balraj Singh v. Zonal Manager and 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

Ravi Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others

Sandeep Vs State of Haryana and Others

Soma Devi Vs State of Haryana and Others

Dhanpat and Another Vs National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra and Another

Sonu Vs State of Haryana and Others

Deepak Singh Jasrotia Vs Union of India and Ors.