CWP-289956-2018 - 1 - IIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIIGARH 208 CWP-28956-2018 Decided on : 17.07.20026 Principal, Vaish Technical Institute, Rohtaak . . . Petitioner(s) Versuss Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cumm-Labour Court, Rohtak and another . . . Respondennt(s) CORAMM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KKIRTI SINGH PRESENTT: Mr. Lokesh Sharma, Advocatate and Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Advocaate for the petitioner(s). (throughh VC) Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advvocate for respondent No.2. **** KIRTI SSINGH, J. (Oral) 1. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitionerr – Managemment i.e. Principal, Vaish Techhnical Institute, Rohtak, whereeby, award daated 05.09.2018 (Annexure P--7), passed by learned Industtrial Tribunal-ccum-Labour Court, Rohtak (foor brevity, ‘learned Tribunal’) has been challenged, vide which, reference NNo.87 of 2016, has been answeredd in favour off respondent No.2 –workman, bby observing that there is a cllear violation of Section 25-H of the Industriaal Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, ‘ID Act’). 2. A perusal of the case record reveals that the Management inn its written staatement filed before the learnedd Tribunal, admitted that responddent No.2 waas appointed as ‘Mali-cum-CChowkidar’ in the Institute on adhoc/conntract basis at a salary of Rs.17000/- per month paid from the hostel fund andd that he worked with the Maanagement from 13/14.07.20100 to SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.21 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document CWP-289956-2018 - 2 - 29.01.20116. 3. While referring to the letter dated 29.01.2016 (Annexure P-1), learned ccounsel for the petitioner–man agement submits that one moonth notice payy amount to Rs.9000/- in lieu oof notice period and an amountt of Rs.77,8500/- in lieu of retrenchment comppensation, as required under Secttion 25-F of thhe ID Act, has been credited in the account of the workman. Thhus, stand takeen by the management is that onnce the retrenchment compensattion and one mmonth salary, for the notice periood, is paid to the workman, there is compliancce of all the provisions of the I.DD Act.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Noo.2– workman, submits that before and afteer termination of services of the petitionerr, the petitioner-company had hirred the services of as many as ninen chowkidaars through the outsourcing agency-M/s Ajay Security anda Placemennt Services, Rohtak. In support oof this contention, he referred to the attendanc e register for the month of Feebruary, 2016, produced on reccord before thee learned Tribunal. It is submitt ed that the petitioner-company hadh evidently terminated the services of its reggular employees and hired the saame services thhough outsourcing which amounnts to unfair labour practice thereeby violating the provisions of Section 25 H oof the I.D. Act, since the responddent was not even given an opportunity off re-employment while hiring the services oof chowkidars by way of outsourrcing. 5. It is further highlighted that the petition filed by the petitionner-company against an identical order passsed by the learned Tribunal in the case of a similarly situated employee hass been dismissed on 22.02.20244 by the coordiinate Bench of this Court in CWWP-4860-2019. SWARNJIT SINGH 6. Heard. 2026.07.21 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-289956-2018 - 3 - 7. The operative part of the ordder passed by the coordinate Bennch in the casee of an identically situated work man reads thus:-“xxxx

6. This Court has examineed the pleadings before it, along withh the documents appended with the wrrit petition and also heard counsel fromf both the sides. 7. Section 25-H of thee ID Act, says as under:-“25H. Re-employmment of retrenched workmen. -- Wheere any workmen are retrenched, and the employer proposes to take into his eemploy any persons, he shall, in suuch manner as may be prescribed, give an opportunity [to the retrenched workmmen who are citizens of India to offffer themselves for rreemployment and such retrenchhed workman] who offffer themselves for re-employment shhall have preference ovver other persons.” 8. After going througgh the said legal provision, this Coourt does not find that any piece of eviidence has been brought on record byy the Management, to the effect that at any point of time, after the retrenchmment of the workman, an offer of emplooyment was made to him, to comply withw Section 25-H of the ID Act, befofore getting services through some other persons or through some other aggency. In view of above, this Court does not find any substanntial ground to deviate from the vieww point taken by the learned Tribuunal. Hence, present writ petition sans mmerits, and is dismissed accordingly.” 8. Learned counsel for the petiitioner–company has not been ablea to distinguish the case of the respondent--workman from that of the factss in CWP-48660-2019.

9. Accordingly, relief granted to the workman is upheld in the same termms as in CWP-4860-2019, aand the present writ petitionn is accordinggly dismissed. 10. Pending miscellaneous appplication(s), if any, also stannds disposed oof. (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE July 17, 22026 SwarnjitS Whether sppeaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reeportable: Yes/No SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.21 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-289956-2018 - 1 - IIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIIGARH 208 CWP-28956-2018 Decided on : 17.07.20026 Principal, Vaish Technical Institute, Rohtaak . . . Petitioner(s) Versuss Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cumm-Labour Court, Rohtak and another . . . Respondennt(s) CORAMM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KKIRTI SINGH PRESENTT: Mr. Lokesh Sharma, Advocatate and Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Advocaate for the petitioner(s). (throughh VC) Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advvocate for respondent No.2. **** KIRTI SSINGH, J. (Oral) 1. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitionerr – Managemment i.e. Principal, Vaish Techhnical Institute, Rohtak, whereeby, award daated 05.09.2018 (Annexure P--7), passed by learned Industtrial Tribunal-ccum-Labour Court, Rohtak (foor brevity, ‘learned Tribunal’) has been challenged, vide which, reference NNo.87 of 2016, has been answeredd in favour off respondent No.2 –workman, bby observing that there is a cllear violation of Section 25-H of the Industriaal Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, ‘ID Act’). 2. A perusal of the case record reveals that the Management inn its written staatement filed before the learnedd Tribunal, admitted that responddent No.2 waas appointed as ‘Mali-cum-CChowkidar’ in the Institute on adhoc/conntract basis at a salary of Rs.17000/- per month paid from the hostel fund andd that he worked with the Maanagement from 13/14.07.20100 to SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.21 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document CWP-289956-2018 - 2 - 29.01.20116. 3. While referring to the letter dated 29.01.2016 (Annexure P-1), learned ccounsel for the petitioner–man agement submits that one moonth notice payy amount to Rs.9000/- in lieu oof notice period and an amountt of Rs.77,8500/- in lieu of retrenchment comppensation, as required under Secttion 25-F of thhe ID Act, has been credited in the account of the workman. Thhus, stand takeen by the management is that onnce the retrenchment compensattion and one mmonth salary, for the notice periood, is paid to the workman, there is compliancce of all the provisions of the I.DD Act.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Noo.2– workman, submits that before and afteer termination of services of the petitionerr, the petitioner-company had hirred the services of as many as ninen chowkidaars through the outsourcing agency-M/s Ajay Security anda Placemennt Services, Rohtak. In support oof this contention, he referred to the attendanc e register for the month of Feebruary, 2016, produced on reccord before thee learned Tribunal. It is submitt ed that the petitioner-company hadh evidently terminated the services of its reggular employees and hired the saame services thhough outsourcing which amounnts to unfair labour practice thereeby violating the provisions of Section 25 H oof the I.D. Act, since the responddent was not even given an opportunity off re-employment while hiring the services oof chowkidars by way of outsourrcing. 5. It is further highlighted that the petition filed by the petitionner-company against an identical order passsed by the learned Tribunal in the case of a similarly situated employee hass been dismissed on 22.02.20244 by the coordiinate Bench of this Court in CWWP-4860-2019. SWARNJIT SINGH 6. Heard. 2026.07.21 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-289956-2018 - 3 - 7. The operative part of the ordder passed by the coordinate Bennch in the casee of an identically situated work man reads thus:-“xxxx

6. This Court has examineed the pleadings before it, along withh the documents appended with the wrrit petition and also heard counsel fromf both the sides. 7. Section 25-H of thee ID Act, says as under:-“25H. Re-employmment of retrenched workmen. -- Wheere any workmen are retrenched, and the employer proposes to take into his eemploy any persons, he shall, in suuch manner as may be prescribed, give an opportunity [to the retrenched workmmen who are citizens of India to offffer themselves for rreemployment and such retrenchhed workman] who offffer themselves for re-employment shhall have preference ovver other persons.” 8. After going througgh the said legal provision, this Coourt does not find that any piece of eviidence has been brought on record byy the Management, to the effect that at any point of time, after the retrenchmment of the workman, an offer of emplooyment was made to him, to comply withw Section 25-H of the ID Act, befofore getting services through some other persons or through some other aggency. In view of above, this Court does not find any substanntial ground to deviate from the vieww point taken by the learned Tribuunal. Hence, present writ petition sans mmerits, and is dismissed accordingly.” 8. Learned counsel for the petiitioner–company has not been ablea to distinguish the case of the respondent--workman from that of the factss in CWP-48660-2019.

9. Accordingly, relief granted to the workman is upheld in the same termms as in CWP-4860-2019, aand the present writ petitionn is accordinggly dismissed. 10. Pending miscellaneous appplication(s), if any, also stannds disposed oof. (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE July 17, 22026 SwarnjitS Whether sppeaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reeportable: Yes/No SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.21 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document