IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-6475-2017 Date of Decision : 11.03.2026 M/S PROMPT SECURITY SERVICES .....Petitioner VERSUS PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, FARIDABAD & ANOTHER .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present : Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Bhupender Singh, Addl.AG, Haryana.

Mr. A.P.Bhandari, Advocate with Ms. Bhargavi, Advocate, for respondent no.2.

****

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (Oral)

1. Through the instant petition, as cast under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the management has assailed the Award dated 08.07.2016 (Annexure P-1), whereby, learned Industrial Tribunal (respondent no.1), has answered the reference in favour of respondent no.2 (workman), and held him entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages @ 40% from the date of demand notice.

2. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court while issuing notice of motion vide order 29.03.2017, took a note of the submission, as made on behalf of the management that they are prepared to take the workman back in service, and thereupon, granted a stay with respect to the payment of back-wages. However, respondent no.2/workman did not initiate any steps for execution of the impugned Award. Resultantly, vide order dated 22.01.2020, specifically, the co-ordinate bench, directed respondent no.2/workman to approach the Labour Inspector of the area within a period of 10 days, who, in turn, was to intimate the petitioner- management to allow him to resume duties. In this regard, the Labour Inspector was directed to submit a compliance report to this Court.

3. As compliance report was filed on 09.12.2025, by the Labour Inspector, subsequently, after stringent directions having been passed by this Court.

4. Though respondent no.2/workman joined his duties with the petitioner-management. However, immediately upon joining, the workman submitted an application seeking leave on the ground of attending a relative’s marriage in another State. Despite the leave not having been sanctioned, the workman proceeded on leave and remained absent from duty. Consequently, the management, vide letter dated 14.12.2025, apprised the Labour Inspector of the said facts and further informed that the workman had not reported back for duty thereafter. It appears that the workman might have secured better prospects elsewhere and therefore, did not intend to continue his employment with the petitioner-company.

5. Learned counsel for respondent no.2/workman submits that the services of the workman, were terminated way back on 26.11.2013, and in order to earn bread and butter for his family he had to look for some other alternate sources of earnings. Therefore, learned counsel for respondent no.2/workman, waived off his right with regard to reinstatement, and wants to address arguments only on the issue of 40% back wages as awarded by the learned Tribunal concerned, as recorded vide last order dated 19.12.2025.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner while joining the issue on back-wages, submits that respondent no.2/workman, is not even entitled for 40% back wages as, the management was always ready and willing to join him into service, and it was him only, who did not join, despite giving such option by the petitioner-management.

7. No other submission was made before this Court.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.2/workman, placed reliance upon ‘Deepali Gundu Surwase versus Kranti Junior Adhyapak and others’ [2013 (10) SCC 324] and submits that the issue with regard to back-wages has already been adjudicated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in detail, wherein some guidelines have been framed, requiring the Courts to taking into consideration before adjudicating the issue of back-wages.

9. He further submits that the the order of termination of respondent no.2/workman, has already been declared illegal by the learned Tribunal concerned. Therefore, merely because the petitione