THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-10197-2019 Date of decision: 17.02.2026 Kasmira Singh ….Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, District SAS Nagar and another ….Respondents

2. CWP-15693-2019 M/s Director/Punjab Institute of Management & Technology, Mandi Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib ….Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, SAS Nagar, Mohali and another ….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Ravi Gakhar, Advocate, for the workman.

Mr. Parveen K. Kataria, Advocate, for the Management.

****

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (Oral)

1. Since both these writ petitions are directed against the same award dated 09.10.2018 (Annexure P-1), therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, these are being decided, vide this common order. CWP-10197-2019 has been preferred by the workman on the ground that despite being answering the reference in his favour, the relief of reinstatement has been denied, and a meager amount of Rs.1,40,000/- only, was granted towards compensation. Conversely, CWP-15693-2019, has been filed by the Management against the relief granted to the workman.

2. Learned counsel for the workman submits that once the termination was held to be illegal, the relief of reinstatement ought not to have been denied. So much so, even the compensation granted to the workman, i.e. Rs.1,40,000/- only, is too meager to justify, in view of the length of service, which the learned Tribunal failed to take into consideration. However, he asserts that almost a decade and a half has rolled by since institution of the reference, therefore, the workman would be satisfied, if he is awarded an dequate compensation.

3. Per contra, it is submitted that the Management has produced on record voluminous documentary evidence in the form of Ex. M3 to Ex.M14, to demonstrate the sheer uncalled for, and unprofessional conduct on the part of the workman. He was served with various show cause notices for his inefficient performance and absenteeism from duty, but neither did he mend his ways, nor did he join. Therefore, he was not terminated in either way. However, the learned Tribunal has apparently failed to factor in all these relevant aspects of the matter, while answering the reference in his favour.

4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the contesting parties, and gone through the record.

5. In nutshell, the facts qua which, there is no wrangle between the parties, are that the workman was engaged as Safai Sewak on 17.02.2001, with the Management, at the monthly remuneration of Rs.3,878/-. However, on account of allegations of inefficiency in performing the duty, and repeatedly absenting himself, he was removed from service on 21/24.11.2010. Aggrieved, the workman filed a demand notice. Eventually, an industrial dispute under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act’), was referred to the learned Tribunal for adjudication, as to whether, services of the workman were terminated in illegal and unjustified manner? If so, to what relief, he is entitled?

6. Upon notice, the Management contested the reference, by filing a written statement. It was categorically set out that the workman was not only a habitual absentee, but was also a non performing employee. In this regard, he had been served with repeated notices, to which, he tendered apologies in writing, and thus, he admitted his guilt.

7. After analysing the matter in issue, and the evidence brought on record, the learned Tribunal came to a conclusion that services of the workman were terminated illegally. However, considering his conduct, the workman was denied the relief of reinstatement, but was granted a compensation of Rs.1,40,000/-.

8. It is a matter of record that the learned Tribunal, in essence, emphatically culled out that it is not a case of voluntary abandonment, but of illegal termination from service. So far as the documents relied upon by the Management are co