M/S VINAY AUTO PVT LTD vs NABH PARKASH & ANR — CWP/163/2018

Case under No Acts Defined. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OF on 12th May 2026.

CNR: PHHC010868812018

CASE DISPOSED

Next Hearing

10th January 2018

Filing Number

CWP/163/2018

Filing Date

08-01-2018

Registration No

CWP/163/2018

Registration Date

08-01-2018

Judge

MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

Coram

MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

Bench Type

Single

Category

18.5 - LABOUR ( 452 )

Judicial Branch

WRITS -I BRANCH

Decision Date

12th May 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OF

Acts & Sections

No Acts Defined

Petitioner(s)

M/S VINAY AUTO PVT LTD

Adv. SACHIN MITTAL

Respondent(s)

NABH PARKASH & ANR

Hearing History

Judge: MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

10-01-2018
07-09-2018
19-04-2018

Orders

10-01-2018

MR. JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI

07-09-2018

MR. JUSTICE DR. SHEKHER DHAWAN

23-10-2018

MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA

12-05-2026
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

The Punjab and Haryana High Court modified an Industrial Tribunal's award granting reinstatement and back wages to Nabh Parkash. Finding the workman's termination violated Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act (lack of proper notice/procedure), the court upheld the illegality but replaced reinstatement with lump-sum compensation of Rs. 3.00 lakhs (Rs. 1.00 lakh per completed year of 3+ years service), citing the workman's attainment of superannuation age and Supreme Court precedents distinguishing daily wage workers from permanent employees. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The Punjab and Haryana High Court modified an Industrial Tribunal's award granting reinstatement and back wages to Nabh Parkash. Finding the workman's termination violated Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act (lack of proper notice/procedure), the court upheld the illegality but replaced reinstatement with lump-sum compensation of Rs. 3.00 lakhs (Rs. 1.00 lakh per completed year of 3+ years service), citing the workman's attainment of superannuation age and Supreme Court precedents distinguishing daily wage workers from permanent employees. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

Explore other courts

Search Another Case