IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA-470-2026 (O&M)

Date of decision : 19.02.2026 The Ram Niwas Cass (Multipurpose)

Ltd., District Bathinda ...Appellant Vs.

Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present: Mr. Siddharth Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.

***

DEEPAK MANCHANDA , J.

Through this intra-court appeal, the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment dated 29.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the award dated 10.07.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Industrial Tribunal has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts emerging from the pleadings are that the respondent worked as Secretary with the appellant/department from 01.11.1975 to 31.03.2007. He was transferred to another department where he worked from 31.03.2007 to 30.05.2014. In total, workman was employed with the appellant/department for 38 years, 11 months and 29 days and retired from service on 30.05.2014. However, at the time of retirement, appellant- department did not pay him salary from May 2011 to March, 2014, and, therefore, he moved an application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, before the Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda, which was allowed vide award dated 10.07.2023 and the appellant-department was directed to make the payment to the workman within three months. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed a writ petition assailing the award dated 10.07.2023, which was dismissed vide order dated 29.01.2026. Now, aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the appellant has challenged the same through this intra-court appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition at the preliminary stage without issuing notice to the private respondents and no adjudication was made on jurisdictional objection, maintainability of application under Section 33-C(2) and status of appellant as “Industry”. He contends that the dispute between a cooperative society and its employee is governed by Sections 55 & 82 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, which bars jurisdiction of the Labour Court. He submits that the Labour Court acted without jurisdiction and the impugned order is nullity. He further contends that the respondent No.2 did not approach the Court with clean hands, having embezzled funds of the appellant society and no finding has been recorded whether the appellant society falls within the definition of industry under the Industrial Disputes Act, therefore, impugned judgment deserves to be set aside.

4. Heard.

5. The findings recorded by the learned Single Judge are reproduced hereinbelow:-

“7. A perusal of the impugned Award reveals that the following issues were framed by the learned Industrial Tribunal concerned:-

“1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the amount alongwith interest as claimed for from the respondent, if so, what rate of interest?(OPA)

2. Whether the application is not maintainable?

(OPR)

3. Relief.

8. It further transpires from reading of the Award that as regards second issue, the onus of which was upon the petitioner- society, it had failed to press thereupon, and therefore, the said issue was decided against the petitioner-society.

9. This Court has put a specific, query to learned counsel for the petitioner, as to whether, the aforesaid issue was ever pressed before learned Industrial Tribunal during the course of arguments, and whether, such a pleading was made in the instant petition, to which, he fairly answered in 'negative'. Instead, he submits that the issue of maintainability, being a legal issue can be raised even by filing instant writ petition.

10. This Court finds that this argument carries no merits. It is the petitioner-society, which opted not to press issue no.2, regarding maintainability, before the learned Industrial Tribunal concerned, therefore, the latt