HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR OWP No. 2191/2015 IA No.01/2015 CM No. 937/2023 CM No. 5200/2024 Reserved on: 30.04.2026 Pronounced on: 08.05.2026 Uploaded on: 11.05.2026 Whether the operative part or full judgment is pronounced: Full Managing Director, Hotel Grand Mumtaz, Srinagar Through Mir Ab. Rashid S/O Kh. Gh. Mohiuddin R/O Soura Srinagar.

…Petitioner(s)

Through: Adv. Nisar Ahmad Bhat.

Vs.

1. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Srinagar.

2. Fayaz Ahmad Shah S/O Mohammad Ashraf Shah R/O Gupkar Nishat Srinagar.

…Respondent(s)

Through: Adv. Ateeb Kanth, for R-2.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. A. CHOWDHARY, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner-management has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the impugned ex-parte Award dated 05.05.2015 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, J&K, Srinagar (‘Tribunal’ in short), in terms whereof, the Tribunal directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent No. 2-Fayaz Ahmad Shah forthwith and also awarded 50% back wages from the date of his alleged termination in May, 2005 passed in a Claim Petition titled Fayaz Ahmad Shah Vs. Managing Director Hotel Grand Mumtaz Srinagar, received as Reference under Section 10 of ID Act.

2. Impugned Award has been assailed by the petitioner-

management on the grounds that the Claim Petition submitted by the respondent No.2-Fayaz Ahmad Shah before the Government in terms of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and the proceedings initiated thereon were not maintainable for the reason that respondent No.2-Claim petitioner was not a “workman” within its definition under Section 2(s)(iv) of the Act; that on receiving the Reconciliation Order, the State Government of J&K vide Notification dated 20.03.2006, referred the matter to the Tribunal in terms of Section 10(1) of the Act for its adjudication on the questions framed by the Reconciliation Officer, wrongly; that the services of the respondent No.2-Claim petitioner were never terminated rather he himself, after being involved in grave misconduct, abandoned his service; that the Tribunal had misdirected itself to order back wages which could be awarded to a ‘workman’, who would have remained idle, whereas respondent No.2 was working as a Pharmacist having his own medical shop.

3. The brief facts leading to file present petition, as pleaded in this writ petition, are that the respondent No. 2 was initially appointed as a Sales Representative by M/S Mushtaq Trading Corporation (erstwhile partnership concern of the petitioner) in April, 1996. The respondent No.2 was later discharging his duties in a supervisory capacity specifically as a Works Supervisor and subsequently as Housekeeping In-charge, drawing a monthly salary of ₹4,500/-. The petitioner-management contends that the respondent No. 2 was involved in grave misconduct i.e., theft of guest's trousers, following which he voluntarily abandoned his services on 23.05.2005 to avoid disciplinary action.

4. Per contra, the respondent No.2 raised an industrial dispute claiming that he was verbally and arbitrarily terminated from service without notice, inquiry, or compliance with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. A failure report was submitted by the Conciliation Officer, and the Government vide SRO 96 dated 20.03.2006, referred the dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Tribunal.

6. Mr. Nisar Ahmad Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, argued that the respondent No.2 right from his engagement was working as a ‘Works Supervisor’ to supervise the constructional work being carried out by the petitioner-management; that the nature of the engagement of the respondent No.2 was on monthly basis, but he did not choose to extend his services beyond 23.05.2005 because of grave misconduct committed by him. It is being argued that the respondent No.2 voluntarily abandoned