Punjab & Haryana High Court Awards ₹5 Lakh Compensation to Worker Denied Absorption for 30 Years Despite Supreme Court Order
Court Slams State for Ignoring Judicial Directions and Welfare Obligations
Landmark Ruling Highlights Rights of Retrenched Workers and Accountability of Government
By Our Legal Correspondent
New Delhi: December 08, 2025:
In a landmark judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court directed the Punjab government to pay ₹5 lakh as compensation to a retrenched worker who had been denied absorption in government service for nearly three decades despite clear judicial directions, including an undertaking before the Supreme Court of India.
Also Read: Delhi High Court Restores GST Registration Cancelled Due to CA-Assessee Dispute and GSTR Default
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar observed that the prolonged inaction of the state compromised the very essence of a welfare state and forced the petitioner into endless litigation. The ruling underscores the importance of government accountability and the protection of workers’ rights.
Background of the Case
- The Worker: The petitioner was employed as an Earth Work Mistri at the Anandpur Sahib Hydel Project (ASHP) in Punjab.
- Retrenchment: He was retrenched on July 31, 1985, and received compensation under the Industrial Disputes Act.
- Supreme Court Order: In the case of Mehanga Ram & Others v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court directed the absorption of similarly placed retrenched workers in government service.
- State’s Failure: Despite this binding precedent and an undertaking by the Advocate General of Punjab before the Supreme Court, the petitioner’s claim for absorption was ignored for decades.
Court’s Observations
Justice Brar made strong remarks against the state:
Also Read: ₹3.5 Lakh Penalty for Audit Trail Non-Compliance: RoC Ahmedabad Reinforces Companies Act Rules
- Failure to Comply: The state failed to comply with judicial directions and its own undertaking before the Supreme Court.
- Litigation Burden: The petitioner was forced to pursue remedies across multiple judicial forums for over 30 years.
- Model Employer Principle: The court emphasized that the government must act as a model employer and extend benefits to all similarly situated employees without forcing them into fresh litigation.
- Compensation Awarded: A lump-sum compensation of ₹5 lakh was ordered to be paid to the petitioner.
Wider Legal Context
- Industrial Disputes Act: Provides retrenched workers with compensation but also protects them from arbitrary state action.
- Supreme Court Precedent: Once the apex court has settled a legal issue, the state is bound to extend the same benefit to all similarly placed individuals.
- Welfare State Doctrine: The judgment reinforces the constitutional vision of India as a welfare state, where the government must prioritize fairness and justice in employment matters.
Implications of the Ruling
- For Workers: The ruling strengthens the rights of retrenched employees and sets a precedent for compensation in cases of prolonged injustice.
- For Government: The judgment is a reminder that the state must comply with judicial directions and act fairly towards employees.
- For Judiciary: The case highlights the role of courts in protecting vulnerable workers against bureaucratic apathy.
Reactions
- Legal Experts: Welcomed the ruling as a strong message to governments that judicial orders cannot be ignored.
- Workers’ Unions: Saw the judgment as a victory for labour rights and a precedent for similar cases.
- Public Opinion: Many criticized the state for forcing a worker into decades of litigation despite clear Supreme Court directions.
Conclusion
The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision to award ₹5 lakh compensation to a retrenched worker denied absorption for 30 years is a landmark in labour jurisprudence. It reinforces the principle that governments must act as model employers, comply with judicial directions, and uphold the rights of workers.
This ruling not only provides relief to the petitioner but also sets a precedent for future cases, ensuring that workers are not left to suffer due to bureaucratic indifference.
Suggested Keywords for SEO (Google + ChatGPT)
Also Read: ICAI Clears Chartered Accountant in DIR-12 Certification Case Involving Foreign National Director
- Punjab Haryana High Court retrenched worker compensation
- Supreme Court order ignored retrenched worker Punjab
- Anandpur Sahib Hydel Project retrenchment case
- Punjab government ordered to pay ₹5 lakh worker
- Welfare state doctrine Punjab Haryana High Court ruling
- Justice Harpreet Singh Brar retrenched worker judgement
- Punjab worker denied absorption Supreme Court directions
- Punjab Haryana HC labour rights compensation case
Also Read: Calcutta High Court Rules Borrowers Cannot Enforce One-Time Settlement Against Banks