Pradeep Kumar Vs the Printer House Pvt. Ltd. and Another — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Pradeep Kumar Vs the Printer House Pvt. Ltd. and Another — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the retrenchment of the petitioners-workmen on 21.05.2021 was in violation of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for want of approval of the concerned authorities, on the plea that a dispute between the workmen and the employer was pending on the date of retrenchment. +2 more

Court's answer

Asked by this Court to provide evidence of the date on which the workman-union raised the alleged dispute before the respondent-company/authorities concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out any such date; therefore the contention that a dispute was pending between the employees and the respondent-management on the date of retrenchment (21.05.2021) cannot be accepted, and the finding recorded in the award is not disturbed.

Ratio / Principle

On the date when the retrenchment orders were passed, there was no notice of any demand raised by the workmen pending consideration with the respondent-company — a fact conceded before the tribunal and before this Court.

Key takeaways

In the absence of receipt of any information qua a pending dispute, the employer is not liable to comply with the provisions of Section 33(2)(b) by presuming that a dispute is pending between the workman and the respondent-employer/company; the labour Court's findings that no demand was pending and no such information was with the company on 21.05.2021 therefore stand.ratio¶¶25
Nar Singh Pal v. Union of India (Supreme Court) is distinguished and inapplicable: therein the workman had acquired temporary status before retrenchment and a violation of the 1947 Act stood established, so acceptance and utilisation of retrenchment compensation did not defeat relief; in the present case no such violation of the 1947 Act qua the retrenchment was proved before the labour Court, and the award's holding of non-pendency of any claim on the date of retrenchment was unrebutted.ratio¶¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Harsimran Singh Sethi, J., oral, 01.07.2025) disposed of five connected writ petitions (CWP-17101-2025 (O&M) and connected cases) filed by workmen of The Printer House Pvt Ltd. All petitioners were retrenched together on 21.05.2021 after payment of retrenchment compensation admissible under law. Their challenge to the labour Court award dated 29.04.2024 (Annexure P-9) rested on Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: they argued that a dispute pending between workmen and employer-management on the date of retrenchment made the retrenchment ineffective without approval of the concerned authorities. Upholding the award, the Court held that counsel, on being asked, could not identify any date on which the workman-union had raised the alleged dispute before the authorities; that non-pendency of any demand notice with the company when the retrenchment orders were passed was a fact conceded before the tribunal and the Court; and that an employer receiving no information of a dispute cannot be made to comply with Section 33(2)(b) by presuming a pending dispute. Reliance placed by counsel on Nar Singh Pal v. Union of India (Civil Appeal No. 2280 of 2000, decided 29.03.2000, Supreme Court) was distinguished as inapplicable — there the workman had acquired temporary status and a violation of the 1947 Act was established, so acceptance and utilisation of retrenchment compensation did not defeat relief — whereas here no violation of the 1947 Act was proved before the labour Court. Applying the standard that a labour Court award is interferable only on a showing of perversity to the facts or evidence on record, and none having been shown, the Court found no ground for interference and dismissed the writ petitions (connected civil miscellaneous applications disposed of). Marked speaking/reasoned: Yes; reportable: No.

Issues for consideration

3 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the retrenchment of the petitioners-workmen on 21.05.2021 was in violation of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for want of approval of the concerned authorities, on the plea that a dispute between the workmen and the employer was pending on the date of retrenchment.¶¶19
The court held
Asked by this Court to provide evidence of the date on which the workman-union raised the alleged dispute before the respondent-company/authorities concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out any such date; therefore the contention that a dispute was pending between the employees and the respondent-management on the date of retrenchment (21.05.2021) cannot be accepted, and the finding recorded in the award is not disturbed.ratio¶¶24
2.
Whether encashment and utilisation of the retrenchment compensation paid by the respondent-company precludes the workmen from claiming relief for an allegedly unlawful retrenchment, as urged placing reliance on Nar Singh Pal v. Union of India (Supreme Court).¶¶29
The court held
Nar Singh Pal v. Union of India (Supreme Court) is distinguished and inapplicable: therein the workman had acquired temporary status before retrenchment and a violation of the 1947 Act stood established, so acceptance and utilisation of retrenchment compensation did not defeat relief; in the present case no such violation of the 1947 Act qua the retrenchment was proved before the labour Court, and the award's holding of non-pendency of any claim on the date of retrenchment was unrebutted.ratio¶¶30
3.
Whether the impugned labour Court award dated 29.04.2024 (Annexure P-9) is perverse of, or contrary to, the facts and evidence on record so as to invite interference by the High Court in writ jurisdiction.¶¶35
The court held
The impugned labour Court award can be interfered with by this Court only where it is shown to be perverse to the facts or evidence which has come on record.ratio¶¶34