##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

114 (I) CWP-33818-2019 Date of Decision : March 24, 2026

KARAMBIR SINGH -PETITIONER

V/S PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER

-RESPONDENTS (II) CWP-33887-2019

RAM KUMAR SINGH -PETITIONER

V/S PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER

-RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

Present: Mr. Rakesh Dhiman, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Adarsh Jain, Sr. Advocate, with Ms. Kamaldeep Kaur, Advocate, and

Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Advocate for the respondent No.2.

***

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

1. Both these writ petitions are amenable for being decided through a common verdict on account of their embodying alike facts and a common question of law for adjudication. For the sake of brevity and convenience, the relief yearned in CWP-33818-2019 is extracted

hereinafter.

2. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 08.02.2019 rendered by the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Gurugram, whereby,

DEVINDER YADAV 2026.03.25 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this

order/judgment

CWP-33818-2019 and CWP-33887-2019 2 reference has been returned unanswered, on account of non- maintainability, the workman-petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition, as cast under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution

of India.

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Industrial Tribunal erred in holding that the references were not maintainable, in view of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in TMA Pai Foundation and others Vs. State of Karnataka, 2002 (8) SCC 481, and the apposite notifications issued by the Haryana Government. He further submits that since there was apparent violation of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (for short, ‘the Act’), the learned Industrial Tribunal was under obligation to adjudicate the reference on merits. Even otherwise, the workmen-petitioners were well within their rights to raise industrial dispute, rather than, availing the remedy to file appeals before the learned District and Sessions Judge concerned, as has wrongly been held by the learned Industrial Tribunal. To substantiate his arguments, he places reliance upon an order dated 06.02.2025, passed by a Coordinate Bench in a bunch of petitions, lead case being CWP-11288-2016 (Sunil Kumar Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Ambala and others).

4. Learned senior counsel for the respondent No.2 does not dispute the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as by

this Court, on the matter in issue.

5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties, and

perused the record.

DEVINDER YADAV 2026.03.25 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this

order/judgment

CWP-33818-2019 and CWP-33887-2019 3

6. The only question which arises for determination of this Court is, as to whether, the learned Industrial Tribunal concerned has the

jurisdiction to adjudicate the references on merits or not?

7. Before proceeding with the matter, this Court is reminded that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the remedy under the Act of 1947, cannot be overpowered by any special law. Ex facie, the issue involved for consideration is no more res integra, as a Division Bench of this Court has already considered the same, in a bunch of appeals, lead case being LPA-1908-2018 (Savitri Devi Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and others), decided on 12.09.2024. For the sake of clarity, it would be expedient to extract the

relevant part of the verdict (supra), and the same reads as under:-

“ 1. These intra Court appeals have been filed against the order dated 13.09.2018, passed by learned Single Judge, whereby, the challenge made to the award passed by the Labour Court dated 14.03.2017 was upheld. The award dated 14.03.2017, decided the reference with regard to illegal termina- tion from service against the wo