IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-37773-2025 Date of Decision : 18.02.2026 PUNJAB AND SIND BANK AND ANR. .....Petitioners VERSUS PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM-

LABOUR COURT-I AND ORS.

.....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present : Mr. Gaurav Goel, Advocate and Mr. Deepak Sonak, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. H.C. Arora, Advocate and Mr. Gagandeep Sandhu, Advocate, for respondent no.2.

*****

KULDEEP TIWARI , J.(Oral)

1. Through the instant writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, an Award dated 02.07.2025 (Annexure P-16), passed by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court-I, Chandigarh (respondent no.1), has been put to challenge by the petitioner-management, whereby respondent no.2-workman, has been ordered to be reinstated into service with all consequential previous benefits from the date of his dismissal from service.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-management submits that the aforesaid Award has been assailed on the ground that the evidence already adduced by the petitioner-management before the learned Tribunal ought to have been considered as fresh evidence, and thereafter, the legality of the termination order passed by the petitioner-management ought to have been tested. However, the same has not been done.

Therefore, the impugned Award warrants interference by this Court.

3. He further submits that at the time of granting 100% back wages, no reasoning has been assigned in the impugned Award. To substantiate his arguments, he placed reliance upon ‘Deepali Gundu Surwase versus Kranti Junior Adhyapak and others’ [2013 (10) SCC 324] and submits that Hon’ble Supreme Court has already laid down the parameters for providing back wages, and therefore, the workman in the present case is not entitled for 100% back wages. However, no such excerise was done in the light of the said judgment. Therefore, on this aspect as well, the impunged Award requires interference.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.2- workman, strongly opposed the submissions, as made by learned counsel for the petitioner-managements, and submits that the preliminary issue regarding validity of the departmental inquiry has been comprehensively adjudicated by the learned Tribunal, and it was held that the inquiry has not been conducted legally, and in accordance with law. He also submits that the learned Tribunal, had given sufficient opportunity to the petitioner-management, to lead fresh evidence to substantiate the charges levelled against respondent no.2-workman. However despite such opportunity, no evidence was led by the petitioner-management, thereby, leaving the learned Tribunal with no other option except to proceed further to decide the issue on the basis of the material available on record. 5. Finally, he submits that once the termination of respondent no.2-workman, has been found to be illegal, the workman, is entitled to 100% back wages, specifically, when there is nothing on record to prove that he was gainfully employed during the interregnum period.

6. Succinctly stated, respondent no.2-workman, filed a claim statement, which was subsequently, treated as a reference under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and referred it to the Tribunal concerned, for adjudication on question of legality of the termination of his services. As per the claim statement, respondent no.2- workman, joined the service with petitioner-management, as apprentice trainee in August, 1978, and after successful completion of the training period, his services were regularised w.e.f. 17.03.1979, as Clerk-cum- Cashier. In September, 2004, he was posted as Special Assistant of Branch Office No.22, Phatak Patiala. He was also put under suspension w.e.f. 31.08.2006, and thereupon, he was served with the a show cause notice dated 04.11.2006, to which, he replied om 09.12.2006. However, finally, he was chargesheeted on dated