Shri Bhagwan Vs Sector Supdt 1 Govt Livestock Farm Hisar and Others

C hallenge in the instant intra C o urt appeal is to the order date d 29.08.2024 p a ssed by learned Single Judge, whereby, the writ petition file d by responden t No.1 was disposed of by dire c ting it to pay a sum of Rs.1.0 0 lakh as lump s um payment to the appellant/w o rkman. 2. I n a reference raised under the I n dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (fo r short ‘the A c t’), learned Industrial Tribuna l -cum-Labour Court, Hisar (fo r short ‘the Tr i bunal’) had answered it in fa v our of the appellant/workma n holding him entitled to be reinstated with continuity of service and al l consequential benefits. Respondent No.1/man a gement had challenged the sai d award by way of a writ petition which, as not i ced above, has been disposed o f vide impugne d order passed by the learned Si n gle Judge.

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.01.29 11:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

¶19

LPA-2554-2024 (O&M)

¶20

As is deciphered from the record, the appellant/workman had worked with the management from 1995 till 1998. He was retrenched on 01.05.1998. It was the case of the appellant that he had been retrenched without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. As noticed above, the reference had been answered in favour of the appellant.

¶21

While disposing of the writ petition, learned Single Judge had relied upon various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including the one in Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Science and another vs. Bikartan Das and others , 2023 SCC OnLine SC 996 , to hold that in order to put the litigation to rest, and keeping in view length of service and last drawn pay of the workman, it would be just and expedient to order payment of lump sum amount of Rs.1.00 lakh to the appellant/workman.

¶22

Vide order dated 05.11.2024, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant was that compliance of Section 17-B of the Act was not complete. So learned State counsel was directed to seek instructions.

¶23

Today, on resumed hearing, learned State counsel has filed an affidavit dated 23.01.2025 of Veterinary Surgeon, Sector-I, Govt. Livestock Farm, Hisar, which has been taken on record and marked as ‘A-1’ for reference.

¶24

A perusal of the said affidavit shows that bill for Rs.1.00 lakh was prepared and sent to the Treasury Office, Hisar for payment and the Treasury Office, Hisar issued the EPS of Rs.1.00 lakh in the name of the appellant, on 22.01.2025, but the amount could not be credited due to some pendency at Treasury level. It is further deposed therein that the said amount will be credited to the account of the appellant/workman very soon.

¶25

Page 2 of 3

¶26

MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.01.29 11:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

¶27

LPA-2554-2024 (O&M)

¶28

Admittedly, the appellant/workman had served respondent No.1 for three years i.e., from 1995 to 1998. Thus, by efflux of time and taking into consideration the service period of the appellant and wages last drawn by him at that point of time, the learned Single Judge had disposed of the writ petition, as noticed above. Therefore, no fault could be found with the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge.

¶29

In view of the above, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order, which may warrant any interference by this Court.

¶30

No other point has been urged. Hence, the present appeal is

¶31

dismissed.

¶32

Needless to say that if aforesaid amount of Rs.1.00 lakh is not credited to the account of the appellant, he will be at liberty to seek revival of the present appeal.

¶33

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶34

(SUDHIR SINGH) JUDGE

¶35

(SUKHVINDER KAUR) JUDGE

¶36

January 23, 2025 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶37

Page 3 of 3

¶38

MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.01.29 11:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

Shri Bhagwan v. Sector Supdt 1 Govt Livestock Farm Hisar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Bhagwan v. Sector Supdt 1 Govt Livestock Farm Hisar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harpreet Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Rani Vs Pawan Kumar

Krishna Vs Anil Chaudhary

Bhagrathi Vs State of Haryana and Others

Vaani Fabrics and Others Vs Securities and Exchange Board and Others

Joginder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.