Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation to ₹2 Lakhs for Illegal Termination, Holds Reinstatement Not Automatic on Violation of Section 25-F
Case Name: Anita Puri v. Industrial Tribunal & Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh and Others
Date of Judgment: January 6, 2015
Citation: CWP No. 19315 of 2011
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court modified an Industrial Tribunal award by enhancing compensation from ₹90,000 to ₹2,00,000 for illegal termination of a clerk employed by a private school, while reiterating that violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, does not automatically entitle reinstatement. Justice Tejinder Singh Dhindsa held that reinstatement must depend on multiple factors such as nature of employment, duration of service, availability of post, and bona fides of abolition of work. The Court found that the petitioner, though illegally retrenched without compliance of Section 25-F, had served in a purely temporary capacity and that the post was genuinely abolished after outsourcing of functions, justifying award of monetary compensation instead of reinstatement.
Summary: The petitioner, Anita Puri, was employed as a clerk by Shri Guru Harkishan Model School, Chandigarh, from November 1, 1995, until her termination on January 10, 2005. She alleged that her termination was mala fide and that the plea of post abolition was fabricated to oust her. She claimed to have performed duties beyond fee collection, including managing stationery, books, and uniforms, and asserted that even after outsourcing of fee collection to Syndicate Bank, her post continued to exist. The management, however, contended that in a meeting of the Executive Committee held on November 6, 2004, a genuine decision was taken to abolish two clerical posts as all relevant functions were outsourced to different agencies.
The Labour Court found that while the management’s decision to abolish the post was bona fide, the termination violated Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act as retrenchment compensation and notice pay were not properly paid. Nevertheless, it awarded lump sum compensation of ₹90,000 in lieu of reinstatement.
Justice Dhindsa upheld the finding of illegality in retrenchment but agreed with the denial of reinstatement. Referring to the Full Bench ruling in Municipal Council, Dina Nagar v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur (LPA No. 754 of 2010, decided on 10.10.2014), the Court reiterated that reinstatement is not a necessary consequence of violation of Section 25-F and must be guided by the nature and tenure of employment. The petitioner, being a temporary employee, could not be reappointed after genuine abolition of post, but deserved enhanced compensation for nearly a decade of service.
Decision: The High Court partly allowed the writ petition, enhancing the compensation to ₹2,00,000 to be paid within eight weeks, failing which it would carry 8% annual interest. Except for this modification, the Labour Court’s award dated July 14, 2011, was affirmed and the writ petition dismissed.