Rajni Vs the Presiding Officer

Prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned Award dated 31.01.2000 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Labour Court and for directing reinstatement of the petitioner in service with continuity of service and all consequential benefits. A further prayer has also been made for grant of any other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk/Typist w.e.f. 08.12.1987 and had continuously worked with respondent No.3 uptil 05.12.1988, whereafter her services were terminated in an illegal and arbitrary manner. It is further argued that the action of the respondents amounts to retrenchment without complying with the

¶15

SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.17 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

CWP-17895-2000 - 2-

¶17

mandatory statutory requirements of the Industrial Disputes Act. Prayer has, thus, been made for setting aside the impugned award and grant of consequential benefits.

¶18

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3 submits that the petitioner was appointed purely on a temporary basis and remained on probation. The appointment letter itself stipulated that her services could be dispensed with at any time without notice and without assigning any reason. It is further submitted that the petitioner's services were dispensed with solely because the post was no longer required, and not on account of any misconduct. It is also contended that no junior to the petitioner was retained in service, as had been the unsubstantiated claim of the petitioner. Learned counsel further argues that the petitioner did not fall within the definition of a "workman" under the Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, the reference itself was not maintainable. Moreover, the dispute was raised after an inordinate delay of about six years, and that even the alternative remedy available to the petitioner under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act was not availed. On these premises, it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.

¶19

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶20

The Labour Court, upon appreciation of the pleadings and evidence, recorded a categorical finding that the petitioner was not entitled to invoke the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and that the reference was not maintainable. It was further noticed that the petitioner was appointed on a purely temporary basis, and her services were dispensed with in terms of the

¶21

SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.17 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

CWP-17895-2000 - 3-

¶23

conditions contained in the appointment letter as the services were no longer required. The Labour Court also took note of the considerable delay in raising the industrial dispute, and upon a cumulative conspectus of the facts of the case and the material on record, dismissed the claim of the petitioner.

¶24

Trite to say that this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, does not sit as a Court of appeal over the findings recorded by the Labour Court. Interference is warranted only when the findings suffer from patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error. In the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner has been unable to point out any material on record demonstrating that the findings returned by the Labour Court suffer from any such infirmity. Rather, the findings are based upon the evidence available on record and the terms of the petitioner's appointment. The order dispensing with the services of the petitioner is simpliciter, and has been passed in accordance with the conditions of appointment. No ground has been made out to warrant interference in exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court.

¶25

Consequently, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶26

(KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE

¶27

July 14, 2026 SwarnjitS Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶28

SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.17 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Rajni v. the Presiding Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajni v. the Presiding Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Joginder Singh and Ors. Vs Deputy Commissioner Cum District Magistrate and Ors.

Ranjit Singh Vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda and Ors.

Ms Chief Engineer Dams Water Resources Department Punjab Vs Commissioner Employees Compensation Gurdaspur and Others

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

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

Sandeep and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others