Ram Singh vs Prisiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala And Others

1-
CWP-36237-2026 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(119) CWP-36237-2026
Date of Decision: 03.11.2026
Ram Singh ......Petitioner
Versus
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala
and Others ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
Present: Mr. Jagram Singh Cooner, Advocate
for the petitioner.

KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL)
1. The present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned Award
dated 30.07.2025 (Annexure P-1), passed by the learned Labour Court,
Ambala, whereby the reference raised by the petitioner-workman was
answered against him. A further prayer has been made for directing
respondents No.2 to 4 to reinstate the petitioner-workman in service with
continuity of service and full back wages.
2. Briefly stated, the case set up by the petitioner-workman before
the learned Labour Court was that he had been appointed as a Ward Boy under
the Annapurna Food Project for indoor patients at Civil Hospital, Ambala
City, vide appointment order dated 11.08.2010/13.08.2010, issued by the
Secretary, District Red Cross Society, Ambala. He joined his duties on
13.08.2010 and was being paid wages at the prevalent DC rates. His services
were terminated on 23.01.2017 by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-President,
Annapurna Food Project, Ambala, on the ground of absence from duty.
RITIKA
2026.11.05 16:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

2-
CWP-36237-2026 -
According to the workman, the termination was in violation of the mandatory
provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as he had
completed more than 240 days of service. He further pleaded that the period of
his absence had been wrongly treated as unauthorised, whereas he had applied
for leave on medical grounds, particularly in view of the illness of his son,
Tanuj, who was undergoing treatment at GMCH, Chandigarh. It was also his
case that he had remained on duty in the office of the Secretary, District Red
Cross Society, Ambala, from 05.12.2016 to 23.12.2016, but had not been paid
wages for the said period. He further alleged that junior employees had been
retained in service and sought reinstatement with continuity of service and full
back wages.
3. The stand taken by the management, on the other hand, was that
the petitioner-workman had been engaged purely on a contractual basis under
the Annapurna Food Project and was bound by the terms and conditions of his
appointment. In terms of Clause 5 thereof, his services could be terminated at
any time by giving one month's notice or payment of one month's
remuneration in lieu thereof. It was further pleaded that the workman was a
habitual absentee and had failed to perform his duties properly. Despite
repeated warnings, his conduct had not improved and he had also misbehaved
with senior officials and patients. The management maintained that an inquiry
had been conducted, an opportunity of personal hearing had been afforded to
him and, upon his failure to satisfactorily explain his conduct, his services
were terminated after paying one month's salary in lieu of notice. Respondent
No.3 before the learned Labour Court, namely, the Chief Medical Officer,
Civil Hospital, Ambala City, separately pleaded that the employment and
termination of the workman were within the purview of the District Red Cross
RITIKA
2026.11.05 16:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

3-
CWP-36237-2026 -
Society and the Annapurna Food Project and that no employer-employee
relationship existed between the workman and the Civil Hospital.
4. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Labour Court framed
issues concerning the legality of the termination, the existence of an employer-
employee relationship and the entitlement of the workman to reinstatement
with continuity of service and back wages. The petitioner-workman examined
himself as WW-1 and Ashwani Kumar, Project Manager, Annapurna Food
Project, as WW-2. He also produced documentary evidence, including the
appointment order, termination order, attendance register and medical
documents. The management examined Sunil Kumar, Clerk, District Red
Cross Society, as MW-1 and Neeraj, ASMO, Civil Hospital, Ambala City, as
MW-2, besides producing the relevant notices, correspondence, attendance
record and inquiry proceedings.
5. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the learned Labour Court held
that the petitioner-workman had been appointed on a contractual basis and had
accepted the terms and conditions governing his engagement. Clause 5 of the
appointment conditions specifically provided for termination of his services by
giving one month's notice or payment of equivalent remuneration in lieu
thereof. The Labour Court also noticed that the workman had remained absent
from duty without intimation, particularly during the month of December
2016, and had failed to satisfactorily explain the same. It further considered
the medical documents produced by him and observed that the only leave
application placed on record pertained to the period from 25.09.2016 to
30.09.2016. No medical record had been produced to substantiate his absence
for the entire month of December 2016.
6. The Labour Court also took note of the show-cause notices,
RITIKA
2026.11.05 16:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

4-
CWP-36237-2026 -
warnings and inquiry proceedings conducted by the management, including
the order placing the workman under suspension and the subsequent inquiry
report. It noticed that one month's salary had been paid to the workman in lieu
of notice through cheque No.142932 dated 23.01.2017. On these facts, the
Labour Court concluded that the termination was in accordance with the
contractual stipulation governing his appointment and fell within the exception
contained in Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Consequently, the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act were held to be
inapplicable.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had
continuously worked as a Ward Boy from 13.08.2010 till 23.01.2017 and had
completed more than 240 days of service. It is argued that the management
could not have taken shelter under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, particularly when the contractual engagement had continued for
approximately six and a half years. Learned counsel further submits that the
termination was founded upon allegations of absence from duty, whereas the
petitioner had sufficiently explained the circumstances leading to his absence.
It is also contended that payment of one month's salary through cheque dated
23.01.2017 could not substitute compliance with the mandatory provisions of
Section 25-F of the Act, as the payment and termination were required to be
simultaneous. It is, therefore, argued that the learned Labour Court failed to
properly appreciate the evidence and the impugned Award deserves to be set
aside.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
relevant material on record.
9. The principal question which arises for consideration is whether
RITIKA
2026.11.05 16:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

5-
CWP-36237-2026 -
the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court, particularly with regard to
the contractual nature of the petitioner's engagement and the applicability of
Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, suffer from any
perversity or legal infirmity warranting interference by this Court in exercise
of its jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
10. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner's appointment on
a contractual basis under the Annapurna Food Project is not in dispute. The
appointment order dated 11.08.2010/13.08.2010, produced as Ex.WW-1,
specifically incorporated the terms and conditions governing his engagement.
The Labour Court has noticed that, under Clause 5 thereof, the services of the
workman could be terminated at any time by giving one month's notice or
payment of equivalent remuneration in lieu thereof. It was also stipulated that
the appointment would not confer any right upon him to claim regularisation
or continuation of service beyond the contractual arrangement.
11. The Labour Court has not merely proceeded on the basis of the
contractual nature of the appointment. It has also examined the circumstances
leading to the termination and the evidence produced by both sides. The
management had placed on record the show-cause notices, warnings and
correspondence issued to the petitioner regarding his absence from duty and
conduct. The relevant attendance record and inquiry proceedings were also
taken into consideration. The workman, on his part, relied upon medical
documents pertaining to his son and claimed that his absence was justified on
account of the latter's illness. However, the Labour Court specifically noticed
that the medical documents produced did not substantiate his absence for the
entire period in question, particularly the month of December 2016. It also
noticed that no leave application covering the said period had been produced.
RITIKA
2026.11.05 16:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

6-
CWP-36237-2026 -
These findings have been recorded after considering the respective versions of
the parties and the documentary evidence brought on record. The petitioner
has not been able to demonstrate that any material document or relevant piece
of evidence was ignored by the Labour Court while returning its findings.
12. The contention that the petitioner had completed more than 240
days of service and was, therefore, necessarily entitled to the protection of
Section 25-F of the Act, cannot be considered in isolation. The applicability of
Section 25-F has to be examined in the context of the nature of termination
and the exception contained in Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act. In the present
case, the Labour Court has returned a specific finding that the termination was
effected in accordance with the stipulation contained in the contractual
appointment, which permitted termination by giving one month's notice or
payment of remuneration in lieu thereof.
13. Significantly, the management had issued cheque No.142932
dated 23.01.2017 towards payment of one month's salary in lieu of notice, the
date of termination itself being 23.01.2017. The petitioner has not been able to
demonstrate from the material on record that the finding recorded by the
Labour Court regarding payment of notice pay is based on no evidence or is
otherwise perverse. The mere fact that the petitioner had worked for a
considerable period under the project, by itself, would not render the
contractual stipulation irrelevant. The material question is whether the
termination was effected in accordance with the terms governing the
engagement, and the Labour Court has answered the same against the
petitioner after examining the appointment conditions and the evidence on
record.
14. The Labour Court also considered the role of the Chief Medical
RITIKA
2026.11.05 16:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

7-
CWP-36237-2026 -
Officer, Civil Hospital, Ambala City, who was respondent No.3 before it. It
noticed that the workman had originally been appointed under the authority of
the District Red Cross Society, Ambala, and that the subsequent operational
control of the Annapurna Food Project had been transferred to the Civil
Surgeon and thereafter to the Swasthya Kalyan Samiti. The Labour Court
found that there was no material to establish that the Chief Medical Officer
had exercised control over the petitioner's employment or was responsible for
his appointment or termination. It further noticed that the Project Manager was
under the direct control of respondent No.1 before it. These findings, too, have
been recorded with reference to the pleadings and evidence available on
record.
15. It is well settled that this Court, while exercising jurisdiction
under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India against an award passed by
the Labour Court, does not sit as an appellate Court to reappreciate the
evidence or substitute its own conclusions merely because another view may
also be possible. Interference is warranted where the findings are perverse,
based on no evidence, suffer from patent illegality or disclose an error of
jurisdiction. A mere disagreement with the appreciation of evidence by the
Labour Court would not, by itself, furnish a ground for interference in the
exercise of supervisory jurisdiction.
16. In the present case, the learned Labour Court has considered the
appointment conditions, the circumstances surrounding the termination, the
evidence relating to the petitioner's absence from duty, the payment of one
month's salary in lieu of notice and the respective roles of the parties. The
findings returned by it cannot be said to be unsupported by the material on
record. Learned counsel has not been able to point out any such perversity,
RITIKA
2026.11.05 16:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

8-
CWP-36237-2026 -
misreading of evidence or patent illegality which would warrant this Court's
interference with the impugned Award.
17. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no ground to
interfere with the impugned Award dated 30.07.2025 passed by the learned
Labour Court, Ambala.
18. Consequently, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the
same is hereby dismissed.
19. Pending civil miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(KIRTI SINGH)
JUDGE
November 03, 2026
Ritika
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
RITIKA
2026.11.05 16:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document