IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (116) CWP No. 3202 of 2025 Date of Decision : 20.02.2025 Indian Overseas Bank ...Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court-II, Chandigarh and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present: Mr. Salil Sagar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gaurav Goel, Advocate and Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the Award dated 12.01.2024 (Annexure P-8) by which the plea of respondent No. 2-Workman that his services have wrongly been terminated have been accepted and the Bank has been directed to reinstate the respondent No. 2-Workman in service along with 30% back wages from the date of termination.

2. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner- Bank submits that first of all, there is no finding which has been recorded that the respondent No. 2-Workman had completed 240 days so as to hold that the termination was in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1947 Act’) and, therefore, the Award dated 12.01.2024 (Annexure P-8) is liable to be set-aside on this ground alone.

3. It may be noticed that the said issue has been decided by the Tribunal on the basis of the material evidence. It may be further noticed that the respondent No. 2-Workman had filed an affidavit giving out the details of the period he had worked with the petitioner-Bank starting from 14.03.2014 till 06.09.2017. He had produced the payment Vouchers which have been noticed in paragraph 8 of the Award and have been exhibited as Ex. W-4 to Ex. W-369. On appreciating the said evidence, the Labour Court had come to the conclusion that the respondent No. 2-Workman had worked for 240 days. It may be noticed that the petitioner-Bank never cross-examined the respondent No. 2-Workman keeping in view the averments made in his affidavit.

4. A bare perusal of the paragraph 5 of the Award would show that the Management was proceeded ex-parte. Once, the Management did not cross-examine the respondent No. 2-Workman and the respondent No. 2- Workmen had proved that he had worked with the petitioner-Bank for whole of the period, the assertion being raised on behalf of the petitioner-Bank at this stage that there was no material evidence to hold that the respondent No. 2-Workman had worked for 240 days so as to claim the violation of Section

25F of the 1947 Act, is incorrect and cannot be accepted.

5. Further, the argument has been raised that 30% back wages should not have been granted. On being asked to point out any factual aspect raised by the petitioner-Bank before the Labour Court that the respondent No. 2-Workman was gainfully employed, learned senior counsel has not been able to point out any such material evidence brought before the Labour Court. In the absence of any such evidence brought before the Labour Court with regard to the fact that the respondent No. 2-Workman was gainfully employed during the period his services remained terminated, it cannot be said that the grant of 30% of the back wages , in the facts and circumstances of the present case where the petitioner-Bank did not participate in the proceedings before the Labour Court is arbitrary or illegal.

6. No other argument is raised.

7. Keeping in view the above, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court with the impugned Award dated 12.01.2024 (Annexure P-8).

8. Dismissed.

February 20, 2025 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)

kanchan JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No