Dismissed¶¶31

Neelam Hospital and Maternity Home v. Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal Patiala and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Feb 2025LPA/565/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Neelam Hospital and Maternity Home LPA-565-2025 Punjab Haryana Chandigarh 21-02-2025 Sudhir Singh Sukhvinder Kaur Sahil Khunger; retrenchment compensation Rs.50,000 workman salary Rs.7,400 per month service 2009-2016 casual labour; Industrial Disputes Act 1947 ID Act coverage; Industrial Tribunal Patiala award 22.07.2024; CWP-31994-2024 Single Judge order 27.11.2024; Devinder Singh v Municipal Council Sangrur (2011) 6 SCC 584; CM-1463-LPA-2025 delay 54 days condoned; appeal dismissed pending applications disposed.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellant; the Tribunal's award of Rs.50,000/- retrenchment compensation in favour of respondent No.2/workman stands undisturbed. ¶¶31

Neelam Hospital and Maternity Home Vs Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal Patiala and Anr. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellant; the Tribunal's award of Rs.50,000/- retrenchment compensation in favour of respondent No.2/workman stands undisturbed.

¶¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant/Hospital was covered by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, given its plea that respondent No.2/workman worked as casual labour and was not governed by the ID Act, rendering the Labour Court award untenable. +2 more

¶¶22

Court's answer

The appellant disputed the workman's claim only on the ground that she had worked as casual labour; the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge and the Labour Court (which had negated that plea in view of Devinder Singh v. Municipal Council, Sangrur, (2011) 6 SCC 584) do not require any interference.

¶¶28

Ratio / Principle

Having worked from 2009 till 2016 on a monthly salary of Rs.7,400/-, the award of Rs.50,000/- retrenchment compensation to respondent No.2/workman cannot be said to be unwarranted, illegal or unjustified.

¶¶28

Key takeaways

No illegality was found in the impugned order of the learned Single Judge warranting interference by this Court; accordingly the appeal was dismissed and pending applications stood disposed of.ratio¶¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Letters Patent Appeal (LPA-565-2025 O&M), High Court of Punjab and Haryana, decided 21.02.2025 (Sudhir Singh & Sukhvinder Kaur) — DISMISSED. Intra-court appeal against the Single Judge's order dated 27.11.2024 in CWP-31994-2024 dismissing the writ petition of Neelam Hospital and Maternity Home challenging the Industrial Tribunal, Patiala award dated 22.07.2024 granting Rs.50,000/- retrenchment compensation to respondent No.2/workman (served 2009–2016; salary Rs.7,400/- p.m.). Appellant's pleas — no proved appointment letter or service period (10.08.2009–05.07.2016), and non-applicability of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on the footing that the workman was mere 'casual labour' — rejected; the Single Judge had negated the casual-labour plea relying on Devinder Singh v. Municipal Council, Sangrur (2011) 6 SCC 584. Bench found the findings of the Single Judge and Labour Court required no interference and no illegality in the impugned order; 54-day filing delay condoned (CM-1463-LPA-2025); pending applications disposed of.

¶1

LPA-565-2025 (O&M)

¶2

114

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH

¶4

LPA-565-2025 (O&M) Decided on: February 21, 2025

¶5

Neelam Hosp i tal and Maternity Home

¶6

….Appellan t

¶7

versus

¶8

Presiding Off i cer, Industrial Tribunal, Patiala a nd another

¶9

….Respondent s

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR

¶11

Present: - M r. Sahil Khunger, Advocate for the appellant.

¶12

¶13

SUDHIR SINGH, J. (ORAL)

¶14

CM-1463-LPA-2025

¶15

F or the reasons stated in applic a tion, same is allowed. Delay o f 54 days in fili n g the appeal is condoned.

¶16

Main case (O&M)

¶17

T he present intra Court appeal is directed against the order date d 27.11.2024 p a ssed by learned Single Judge, in CWP-31994-2024, whereb y the said writ p etition filed by the appellant, has been dismissed. 2. B efore the learned Single Judge, the appellant had laid challeng e to the award d ated 22.07.2024 (Annexure P- 4 with the writ petition) passe d by the Presidi n g Officer, Industrial Tribunal, P atiala (for short ‘the Tribunal’ ) whereby, a n amount of Rs.50,000/- w as awarded to responden t No.2/workma n as retrenchment compensation.

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.02.27 18:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

¶20

LPA-565-2025 (O&M)

¶21

Learned Single Judge had found that at the time of retrenchment of respondent No.2/workman, she was getting a salary of Rs.7,400/- per month and therefore, the amount of compensation of Rs.50,000/- requires no interference.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Hospital has vehemently contended that neither any appointment letter as regards the appointment of respondent No.2/workman was proved on record nor respondent No.2/workman had proved that she had worked with the appellant for the period 10.08.2009 – 05.07.2016. It is further argued that the appellant/Hospital was not covered by the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the ID Act’), and therefore, the impugned award passed by the Labour Court was not tenable. It is thus, argued that all these aspects have totally been ignored by the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order.

¶23

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶24

A perusal of the award dated 22.07.2024 passed by the Labour Court would show that the stand of the appellant was that services of respondent No.2/workman were availed as a casual labour and therefore, she was not governed by the provisions of the ID Act. Even the said plea had also been reiterated by the learned counsel for the appellant before the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge negated the said argument in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Devinder Singh versus Municipal Council, Sangrur , reported as (2011) 6 SCC 584 .

¶25

Page 2 of 3

¶26

MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.02.27 18:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

¶27

LPA-565-2025 (O&M)

¶28

As the appellant has disputed the claim of respondent No.2/workman only on the ground that she had worked as a casual labour, we find that the findings recorded by learned Single Judge and the Labour Court do not require any interference. It has rightly been found that when respondent No.2/workman was retrenched, she was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.7,400/- and, thus, having worked from 2009 till 2016 with the aforesaid monthly salary, the award of retrenchment compensation of Rs.50,000/cannot be said to be unwarranted, illegal or unjustified.

¶29