CWP-15171 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT 104/3 M/S STL GLOB PRESIDING OFFICER AND ANR. CORAM: HON'BLE Present: KIRTI SINGH 1) Constitution of India seeking quashing of the Award dated passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal Faridabad in Reference N Global Ltd." management to reinstate respondent No.2 service and to pay 50% back wages from the date of demand notice til reinstatement. 2) on a reference raised by respondent No.2 the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, alleging that he had been working as a 15171-2026 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date of Decision: 27.07.2026 M/S STL GLOBAL LTD. VS PRESIDING OFFICER AND ANR. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Mr. Aditya Jain, Advocate, Mr. Yatin Mehta, Advocate and Mr. Reneit Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioner. **** KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL) This writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the Award dated passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal Faridabad in Reference No.65 of 2019 titled Global Ltd.", whereby the learned Labour Court has directed the petitioner management to reinstate respondent No.2 service and to pay 50% back wages from the date of demand notice til reinstatement. Brief factual matrix is that an industrial on a reference raised by respondent No.2 the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, alleging that he had been working as a -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-15171-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.07.2026 ... Petitioner ... Respondents MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH and Mr. Reneit Malhotra, Advocate This writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the Award dated 09.02.2026 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court- o.65 of 2019 titled "Sunil Jha versus M/s STL , whereby the learned Labour Court has directed the petitioner management to reinstate respondent No.2-workman with continuity of service and to pay 50% back wages from the date of demand notice til Brief factual matrix is that an industrial dispute was instituted on a reference raised by respondent No.2-workman under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, alleging that he had been working as a This writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the 09.02.2026 -III, "Sunil Jha versus M/s STL , whereby the learned Labour Court has directed the petitioner- workman with continuity of service and to pay 50% back wages from the date of demand notice till was instituted A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, alleging that he had been working as a SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.31 13:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-15171 Generator Operator with th were illegally terminated on 24.08.2018 without issuance of any charge sheet, without holding any domestic enquiry and without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner contested the claim by pleading that the company itself came into existence only on 01.02.2010, that the alleged appointment from the year 2006 was false and fabricated, and that there was no termination of service as the workman himself had abandone with effect from 10.07.2018. 3) Labour Court between the parties material showing compliance with the principles of natural justice or any action on the part of the management calling upon the workman to resume duties, the plea of abandonment management, workman's services was illegal. 4) Labour Court has misread the evidence, wrongly shift upon the management his cross abandonment. It is further submitted that the impugned Award suffers from perversity and, therefore, deserves to be set aside. 15171-2026 (O&M) Generator Operator with the petitioner-management were illegally terminated on 24.08.2018 without issuance of any charge sheet, without holding any domestic enquiry and without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner contested the claim by pleading that the company itself came into existence only on 01.02.2010, that the alleged appointment from the year 2006 was false and fabricated, and that there was no termination of service as the workman himself had abandoned the job by remaining absent from duty with effect from 10.07.2018. Upon appreciation of the pleadings and evidence, the learned Labour Court concluded that since the employer between the parties was not in dispute, therefore, in material showing compliance with the principles of natural justice or any action on the part of the management calling upon the workman to resume duties, the plea of abandonment by the petitioner, as taken by the management, was wholly unsubstantiated and that the termination of the workman's services was illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Labour Court has misread the evidence, wrongly shift upon the management; ignored the admiss his cross-examination, and erroneously rejected the defence of abandonment. It is further submitted that the impugned Award suffers from perversity and, therefore, deserves to be set aside. -2- management, and that his services were illegally terminated on 24.08.2018 without issuance of any charge sheet, without holding any domestic enquiry and without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner-management contested the claim by pleading that the company itself came into existence only on 01.02.2010, that the alleged appointment from the year 2006 was false and fabricated, and that there was no termination of service as the d the job by remaining absent from duty Upon appreciation of the pleadings and evidence, the learned concluded that since the employer-employee relationship was not in dispute, therefore, in the absence of any material showing compliance with the principles of natural justice or any action on the part of the management calling upon the workman to resume by the petitioner, as taken by the unsubstantiated and that the termination of the Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Labour Court has misread the evidence, wrongly shifting the burden of proof ignored the admissions made by the workman during and erroneously rejected the defence of abandonment. It is further submitted that the impugned Award suffers from perversity and, therefore, deserves to be set aside. and that his services were illegally terminated on 24.08.2018 without issuance of any charge- sheet, without holding any domestic enquiry and without complying with the ement contested the claim by pleading that the company itself came into existence only on 01.02.2010, that the alleged appointment from the year 2006 was false and fabricated, and that there was no termination of service as the d the job by remaining absent from duty Upon appreciation of the pleadings and evidence, the learned employee relationship absence of any material showing compliance with the principles of natural justice or any action on the part of the management calling upon the workman to resume by the petitioner, as taken by the unsubstantiated and that the termination of the Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned the burden of proof ions made by the workman during and erroneously rejected the defence of abandonment. It is further submitted that the impugned Award suffers from SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.31 13:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-15171 5) carefully perused the impugned Award as well as the material available on record. 6) appreciating the entire evidence on record, returned a finding that since charge-sheet, sh workman to resume duties was produced sought to be canvassed by the management, remained unsubstantial. It was further noticed that service records which could have substantiated its defence. 7) burden of proof upon the management is equally devoid of merit. Once the specific defence of voluntary abandonment was the burden to establish such plea necessarily rested upon it. The learned Labour Court rightly examined whether the evidence produced by the management was sufficient to prove abandonment and, on finding the same deficient, reject disclose any legal infirmity. 8) jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India over awards of Labour Courts/Industrial T fact, nor does it re was possible; interference is warranted only where a finding is shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, or vitiated by an er 15171-2026 (O&M) I have heard learned counsel for t carefully perused the impugned Award as well as the material available on In the present case, the learned Labour Court appreciating the entire evidence on record, returned a finding that since sheet, show-cause notice, domestic enquiry or notice requiring the workman to resume duties was produced, therefore, the plea of abandonment sought to be canvassed by the management, remained unsubstantial. It was further noticed that the management also service records which could have substantiated its defence. The contention that the Labour Court wrongly shifted the burden of proof upon the management is equally devoid of merit. Once the specific defence of voluntary abandonment was the burden to establish such plea necessarily rested upon it. The learned Labour Court rightly examined whether the evidence produced by the management was sufficient to prove abandonment and, on finding the same deficient, rejected the defence. Such appreciation of evidence does not disclose any legal infirmity. It is well settled that this Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India over awards of Labour Courts/Industrial Tribunals, does not sit in appeal over findings of fact, nor does it re-appreciate the evidence to test whether a different view was possible; interference is warranted only where a finding is shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, or vitiated by an er -3- I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have carefully perused the impugned Award as well as the material available on In the present case, the learned Labour Court, after duly appreciating the entire evidence on record, returned a finding that since cause notice, domestic enquiry or notice requiring the , therefore, the plea of abandonment sought to be canvassed by the management, remained unsubstantial. It was also withheld the contemporaneous service records which could have substantiated its defence. The contention that the Labour Court wrongly shifted the burden of proof upon the management is equally devoid of merit. Once the specific defence of voluntary abandonment was raised by the management, the burden to establish such plea necessarily rested upon it. The learned Labour Court rightly examined whether the evidence produced by the management was sufficient to prove abandonment and, on finding the same ed the defence. Such appreciation of evidence does not It is well settled that this Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India over awards ribunals, does not sit in appeal over findings of appreciate the evidence to test whether a different view was possible; interference is warranted only where a finding is shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, or vitiated by an error of law apparent on he petitioner and have carefully perused the impugned Award as well as the material available on , after duly appreciating the entire evidence on record, returned a finding that since no cause notice, domestic enquiry or notice requiring the , therefore, the plea of abandonment sought to be canvassed by the management, remained unsubstantial. It was he contemporaneous The contention that the Labour Court wrongly shifted the burden of proof upon the management is equally devoid of merit. Once the raised by the management, the burden to establish such plea necessarily rested upon it. The learned Labour Court rightly examined whether the evidence produced by the management was sufficient to prove abandonment and, on finding the same ed the defence. Such appreciation of evidence does not It is well settled that this Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India over awards ribunals, does not sit in appeal over findings of appreciate the evidence to test whether a different view was possible; interference is warranted only where a finding is shown to be ror of law apparent on SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.31 13:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-15171 the face of the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner, despite his able assistance, has been unable to point to any such infirmity in the impugned Award. The findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are based on a fair appreciation of the evidence on record and call for no interference. 9) jurisdictional error in the impugned Award dated interference under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India 10) same is hereby 27.07.2026 SwarnjitS Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 15171-2026 (O&M) the face of the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner, despite his able assistance, has been unable to point to any such infirmity in the impugned Award. The findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are based on a fair tion of the evidence on record and call for no interference. Consequently, this Court finds no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned Award dated interference under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India Accordingly, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same is hereby dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No -4- the face of the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner, despite his able assistance, has been unable to point to any such infirmity in the impugned Award. The findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are based on a fair tion of the evidence on record and call for no interference. Consequently, this Court finds no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned Award dated 09.02.2026 warranting interference under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No the face of the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner, despite his able assistance, has been unable to point to any such infirmity in the impugned Award. The findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are based on a fair Consequently, this Court finds no illegality, perversity or warranting Accordingly, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.31 13:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document