Punjab And Haryana High Court Directs ₹5 Lakh Compensation To Retrenched Worker Denied Absorption For Nearly 3 Decades Despite Supreme Court Directions
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Single Bench of Justice Harpreet Singh Brar directed the State authorities to pay a lump-sum compensation of Rs 5 lakh to a retrenched employee of the Anandpur Sahib Hydel Project, in lieu of reinstatement and back wages, to be released within three months of receiving the certified order. The case arose from the employee’s grievance that, despite prior judicial directions and an undertaking before the Supreme Court to absorb workers whose services had been terminated from the project, the State had extended appointments only to some similarly situated employees. Alleging arbitrary denial of equal treatment, the petitioner sought appointment, but the Court, noting the prolonged passage of time and present circumstances, confined the relief to monetary compensation.
The petitioner was appointed as an Earth Work Mistri on a work-charged basis in the Anandpur Sahib Hydel Project on 10.09.1978. After completion of the project, his services were terminated on 31.07.1985 and retrenchment compensation was paid under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He was a party to earlier proceedings culminating in a Division Bench judgment dated 12.01.1989, which issued specific directions for the absorption of retrenched employees of the project within six months.
The petitioner claimed that despite this direction, he was not absorbed. He relied on an undertaking dated 04.08.1995 given by the Advocate General, Punjab before the Supreme Court, stating that appointment or transfer letters would be issued to employees whose services were terminated from the project. He alleged discrimination as other similarly situated employees received appointments.
The State contended that he was not in service when a 1993 policy was framed, was not a direct party in the Supreme Court proceedings, and that his application in those proceedings had been withdrawn with liberty to approach the High Court. The State also raised laches, asserting delay in filing the writ petition in 1997.
The Court recorded that “once a competent Court has granted a certain relief to one set of employees, their similarly-situated counterparts must not be forced to move the Courts by denying them an identical relief.” It further stated that “the decision of the competent Court ought to be honoured to promote predictability and consistency in the law.”
It observed that the essence of a welfare state is compromised when State instrumentalities become a source of prolonged litigation. The judgment recorded that “the State must act as a ‘model employer’… Once a competent court has settled a legal issue and granted a specific relief to a set of employees, the State is under a solemn obligation to extend the same benefit to all other similarly situated individuals.” The Court stated that denying the benefit to one while granting it to another identically placed is “the very definition of arbitrariness prohibited under Article 14 of the Constitution.”
The Court examined the established facts, recording that the petitioner was a retrenched employee of the same project and part of the earlier litigation. It noted that the prior judgment contained a “specific, positive, and mandatory direction for the absorption of retrenched employees… declaratory in nature for all the employees, not confined to the employees who filed the writ petition.” It also observed that the Advocate General’s undertaking before the Supreme Court was applicable to all retrenched employees, stating that appointment letters would be issued to “the employees whose services were terminated from the Anandpur Sahib Hydel Project.”
The Court recorded that the petitioner fell squarely within this class and that the State implemented the undertaking for some employees while excluding him. It held that the objection of laches was misplaced, stating that the cause of action was “a recurring one in cases of continuous discrimination.” It further noted that the petitioner had been vigilant through his representations and Supreme Court application.
Referring to Supreme Court precedent, the Court quoted: “If the employee is not at all at fault and she was kept out of work by reasons of the decision taken by the employer, then to deny the fruits of her being vindicated… would be unfair.” It further recorded that reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and that monetary compensation may be appropriate. The Court stated that reinstatement at this stage was impracticable due to the lapse of time and the petitioner’s age, noting that he had endured hardship “without any fault on his own part.”
The Court directed that “the present petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the respondent to compensate the petitioner by paying a lump sum amount of Rs.5 Lakhs as a monetary compensation sub-serving the ends of justice which shall be released within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.”
“Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. R.K. Gautam, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab; Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate
Case Title: Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025 PHHC 160684
Case Number: CWP-13449-1997 (O&M)
Bench: Justice Harpreet Singh Brar
