IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-29343-2019 Date of Decision : 16.04.2026 INDU .....Petitioner VERSUS PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND LABOUR COURT AND OTHERS .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present : Mr. Amit Kaith, Advocate with Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Oshin Swani, Advocate for Mr. Puneet Sharma, Advocate, for respondents no.2 and 3.

KULDEEP TIWARI, J.(Oral)

1. Through the instant petition, filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the Award dated 25.04.2009 (Annexure P-3), passed by the Industrial Tribunal (respondent no.1), has been put to challenge by workman, as despite the reference having been answered in her favour, while holding her termination illegal, instead of granting reinstatement alongwith back wages, she was granted compensation of Rs.15,000/- only.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-workman submits that the petitioner-workman had worked for four years, i.e. from 16.07.2011 to 30.05.2015, and this aspect has not been considered while declining the relief of reinstatement. However, he submits that the petitioner's services were terminated way back in the year