Prem Singh Vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal Patiala and Others

The instant petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of order dated 16.03.2021 (Annexure P-3), passed by respondent No.1, whereby the petition of the petitioner has been dismissed.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner, while narrating the brief factual background of the case, submits that the petitioner-workman was engaged as a Beldar under respondent No.2 from 09.06.1996 to 28.02.1997, whereafter his services were illegally terminated. Challenging the same, he raised an industrial dispute, culminating in Award dated 28.08.2014, whereby his claim was rejected on the ground that he had failed to establish completion of 240 days of continuous service. The said Award was assailed

¶19

before this Court in CWP No.17275 of 2015, upon the outcome of which the

¶20

ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.07.21 14:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶21

CWP-17314-2021 -2-

¶22

petitioner initiated fresh proceedings alleging violation of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), which too came to be dismissed by the Industrial Tribunal vide Award dated 16.03.2021. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that services of the petitioner were terminated illegally without compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Act, and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Thereafter, the respondent-management even engaged and regularized several persons against the same nature of work, without first offering reemployment to the petitioner, thereby infringing his statutory right under Section 25-H of the Act. It is argued that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective and erroneously rejected the claim despite the work continuing to be available with the department.

¶24

Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner was engaged purely on ad hoc basis for a fixed tenure of 89 days, initially from 12.09.1996 to 09.12.1996, which was thereafter extended for another fixed term. It is contended that the petitioner did not complete 240 days of continuous service, a finding which had already attained finality in the earlier round of litigation. It is further submitted that Raj Khan and Jagtar Singh were regularized only in the year 2001, while the remaining persons referred to by the petitioner also worked merely on ad hoc basis and were never regularized. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner neither established that the said employees were junior to him nor produced any material to show that he had ever approached the department seeking reemployment. It is, therefore, argued that no case of violation of Section 25-H

¶25

ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.07.21 14:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶26

CWP-17314-2021 -3-

¶27

of the Act is made out and the Tribunal has rightly rejected the reference.

¶28

Heard learned counsel on either and perused the case record.

¶29

Before proceeding further, a gainful reference can be made to the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘ Management of the Barara Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Society Limited V. Workman Pratap Singh ’, passed in Civil Appeal No.7 of 2019, wherein essential ingredients of Section 25-H of the Act were explained. The relevant paragraphs thereof read thus:-

¶30

“13. Section 25-H of the ID Act applies to the cases where the employer has proposed to take into their employment any persons to fill up the vacancies. It is at that time, the employer is required to give an opportunity to the "retrenched workman" and offer him reemployment and if such retrenched workman offers himself for reemployment, he shall have preference over other persons, who have applied for employment against the vacancy advertised.

¶31

14. The object behind enacting, Section 25-H of the ID Act is to give preference to retrenched employee over other persons by offering them re-employment in the services wheit the employer takes a decision to fill up the new vacancies.

¶32

15. Section 25-H of the ID Act is required to be implemented as per the procedure prescribed in Rule 78 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the ID Rules") which, in clear terms, provides that Section 25-H of the ID Act is applicable only when the employer decides to fill up the vacancies in their set-up by recruiting persons. It provides for issuance of notice to retrenched employee prescribed therein in that behalf

¶33

16. So, in order to attract the provisions of Section 25-H of the ID Act, it must be proved by the workman that firstly, he was the "retrenched employee" and secondly, his ex-employer has decided to fill up the vacancies in their set-up and, therefore, he is entitled to claim preference over those persons, who have applied against such vacancies for a job while seeking king re-employment re-employment in in the services.”

¶34

A perusal of the case record reveals that the findings returned

¶35

by the Tribunal are borne out from the documentary record and the admissions elicited during the evidence. It was the specific noting by the Tribunal that although the petitioner alleged that one Raj Khan and one

¶36

ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.07.21 14:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶37

CWP-17314-2021 -4-

¶38

Jagtar Singh, who were junior to him, besides other workmen, had been appointed on the same post, yet the same remained unsubstantiated by way of any evidence. The workman neither summoned the seniority record nor produced any service record to establish that the aforesaid employees were appointed subsequent to him or that they were junior in service. Rather, he admitted during his cross-examination that the petitioner admitted that he did not remember the names of the employees who had joined along with him. Similarly it was observed by the Tribunal that the petitioner had failed to prove that he had ever approached the respondent-management seeking re-employment after his disengagement or at the time when the alleged subsequent appointments were made. Thus, the foundational facts necessary to invoke Section 25-H of the Act remained unproved.

¶39

On the contrary, the evidence adduced by the management was sufficient to establish that the petitioner was appointed purely on temporary and ad hoc basis for a fixed tenure of 89 days vide appointment letter dated 11.09.1996 (Ex. M-2), which was thereafter extended by another fixed tenure of 89 days vide letter dated 30.12.1996 (Ex. M-3). The petitioner admittedly ceased to work upon expiry of the contractual period.

¶40

It is also significant to note that the earlier industrial dispute instituted by the petitioner culminated in an award dated 28.08.2014, holding that the petitioner had failed to establish completion of 240 days' continuous service. While disposing of CWP No.17275 of 2015 wherein the said award had been challenged, this Court observed that while there was no infirmity in the findings with respect to the non-completion of the statutory period of 240 days, the petitioner's independent right, if any, under Section ITHLESH KUMAR2026.07.21 14:01 25-H would remain available for adjudication. Accordingly, the learned I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶41

CWP-17314-2021 -5-

¶42

Tribunal confined itself to examining only the alleged violation of Section 25-H and, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, concluded that the petitioner had failed to establish the essential ingredients thereof. The findings are based upon appreciation of evidence and are neither arbitrary nor unsupported by the record.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to satisfy this Court regarding any illegality or perversity in the impugned award, which may warrant any interference.

¶44

Trite to say that this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India does not sit as an Appellate Court to re-appreciate factual findings in the absence of any manifest illegality or perversity. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional error, violation of principles of natural justice or patent illegality, warranting any interference by this Court.

¶45

Consequently, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same is hereby dismissed.

¶46

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands

¶47

disposed of.

¶48

(KIRTI SINGH) July 15, 2026 JUDGE Ithlesh

¶49

Whether speaking/reasoned:Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶50

ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.07.21 14:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

Prem Singh v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal Patiala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Singh v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal Patiala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajni Vs the Presiding Officer

Raibahadur Lala B.D.Trust Vs Labour Court and Ors.

Gurmail; Kaur Vs P.O.Labour Court,Bhatinda and Another

Haryana State Vs Chandi Ram and Anr.

Naveen Kumaqr Vs Presiding Officer and Ors.

Wazir Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others