IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 08.04.2026 Bata India Ltd. ….Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Amritsar and another ….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Arvind Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Puneet Sharma, Advocate, and Ms. Oshin Swami, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

****

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (Oral)

1) The petitioner-Management, by filing the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has assailed the award dated 01.04.2015 (Annexure P-13), vide which, learned Industrial Tribunal answered the reference in favour of the respondent-workman. Accordingly, the Management was directed to reinstate him on the post of Salesman, along with full back wages @ 9% interest per annum, from the date of his termination till reinstatement.

2) Before proceeding further, it would be pertinent to refer to the order dated 06.02.2026, passed by this Court:-

“At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner, after having instructions from the authorized representative of the petitioner- Management, who is present in Court, submits that the Management is ready to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the respondent-

workman, towards full and final settlement.

In response, learned counsel for respondent No.2, submits that since the respondent-workman has suffered injuries due to a road accident, he may be granted some time to seek instructions, in this regard.

The asked for request is accepted.

Adjourned to 23.02.2026.

To be taken up immediately after the urgent list.

It is made clear that, on the subsequent date of hearing, no request for adjournment would be entertained on behalf of either side.”

3) Today, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from the quarter concerned, submits that the Management, in order to give a quietus to the long standing dispute, is ready to pay an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- to the respondent-workman towards full and final settlement.

4) Learned counsel for the respondent-workman has graciously accepted the proposal. However, he submits that the petitioner- Management may be directed to remit the abovesaid agreed amount within a stipulated period.

5) In the wake of the consensuses arrived at between the parties, this Court is not required to delve into the merits of the matter. Consequently, petitioner-Management is directed to remit an amount of Rs.6,50,000/-, in the account of the respondent-workman, details whereof, as supplied by learned counsel for the respondent-workman, are provided hereinbelow, within eight weeks from the receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, he shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing of this petition:-

Name: Ajay Kumar Sharma A/c No: 01010100014712 IFSC: BARB0AMRITS

6) However, in case of any change in the bank details, the respondent-workman shall provide the same well in time, so as to enable the Management to comply with the abovesaid directions issued by this Court. Accordingly, the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above, and the instant writ petition is disposed of (KULDEEP TIWARI JUDGE

08.04.2026 Ak Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable Yes/No