IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : February 17, 2026 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, LIFT WATER SERVICES, MECHANICAL DIVISION, BHIWANI -PETITIONER V/S SATPAL AND ANR.

-RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Bhupender Singh, Addl. A.G., Haryana for the petitioner.

Ms. Preeti Singh, Advocate (Through V.C.) with Ms. Sandhya Saini, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

***

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

1. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner/management assails the award dated 20.07.2012 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Hisar, whereby the reference was answered in favour of the respondent No.1/ workman and the management was directed to reinstate him in service with immediate effect. However, no other relief, including back wages, was granted in view of the principle of “no work, no pay”.

2. Succinctly stated; the workman raised an industrial dispute by serving a demand notice/claim statement, asserting that he was engaged as a Sweeper by the management in July 2003 on monthly wages. He claimed to have worked continuously up to 14.02.2008 and alleged that when he reported for duty on 15.02.2008, he was not permitted to resume work and was orally informed that his services were no longer required. It was thus contended that the termination of his services was effected in blatant violation of Sections 25-N, 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the I.D. Act”), entitling him to reinstatement with full back wages and consequential benefits.

3. The management, in its written statement, denied the averments of continuous engagement since July 2003. It was pleaded that the workman was engaged only on a part-time, contractual basis, for the periods 01.10.2007 to 31.10.2007, 01.11.2007 to 30.11.2007 and 01.01.2008 to 31.01.2008. It was further asserted that he did not report for duty after

31.01.2008 and had voluntarily abandoned his employment.

4. Upon appreciation of the pleadings and evidence led by the parties, the Industrial Tribunal drew the impugned award, holding that (i) the workman had indeed been engaged by the management; (ii) a relationship of master and servant existed between the parties; and (iii) the termination of his services was in violation of Sections 25-F and 25-H of the I.D. Act.

5. Learned counsel for the management reiterates the submissions advanced before the Industrial Tribunal, contending that the workman was engaged merely on an hourly and contractual basis, and that too not against any sanctioned post, and he had voluntarily abandoned the job. No other argument has been raised.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the workman submits that an identical issue had arisen before a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP- 25587-2017, wherein the management had challenged an award directing reinstatement. The said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated

10.07.2024 and the award was upheld.

7. It is further contended that the findings recorded by the Industrial Tribunal are pure findings of fact and do not warrant interference, particularly in the absence of any perversity having been demonstrated by the management. It is submitted that the Industrial Tribunal rightly concluded that the workman remained in continuous service from 23.07.2004 to 31.01.2008, and his termination was in breach of Sections 25- F and 25-H of the I.D. Act. In the absence of any patent illegality or perversity in the impugned award, the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

8. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has also perused the material available on record.

9. It is apposite to note, at this juncture, that the operation of the impugned award was stayed by this Court vide order dated 11.12.2013, subject to compliance with Section 17-B of the I.D. Act. Learned counsel for the management has placed on record an affidavit dated 13.01.2026, stating that wages up to 30.11.2025 have been paid to the workman in complia