W.P.(C) 5395/2007 $~30 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010883732007 + W.P.(C) 5395/2007 THE GENERAL MANAGER, CANARA BANK.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Jasbir Bidhuri & Mr. Aditya Manisharma, Advs. versus SANGEETA KHANNA .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN O R D E R % 11.08.2026 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge award dated 23.05.2007 (hereafter ‘impugned award’), passed in ID No. 14/97 whereby the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal directed that the respondent is to be deemed to be in service and she will remain so till she attains the age of superannuation. The respondent was also awarded consequential benefits, that is, salary minus the amount of pension till reinstatement. 2. Briefly stated, it was the case of the respondent that while a dispute (being I.D. No.14/1997) regarding stoppage of her increments was pending determination, the petitioner management imposed punishment of compulsory retirement on her with effect from 21.04.2001 for purported misconduct unconnected with the pending dispute. 3. Perusal of the impugned order indicates that though the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/08/2026 at 11:42:37 W.P.(C) 5395/2007 petitioner sought to contest that the punishment was granted under a Bipartite Settlement, the said assertion was rejected as there was no material to show that the punishment had been awarded under the said settlement and the said settlement had not been proved. Categorically recording that the industrial dispute, being I.D. No.14/1997, had been pending at the time of passing of the impugned order of compulsory retirement, the learned Tribunal held that the respondent could not have been dismissed and her working conditions could not have been altered without taking approval of the authority in terms of Section 33(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘I.D. Act’). The view of the learned Tribunal is well-reasoned and the petitioner has not been able to satisfy that there has been a compliance of Section 33(2) of the I.D. Act. Thus, to this extent, I find no infirmity in the impugned award. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, relies upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in United Bank of India v. Sidhartha Chakraborty : (2007) 7 SCC 670 to contend that even if the Court is of the opinion that the impugned punishment order was passed without taking approval in terms of Section 33 of the I.D. Act, liberty should be granted to the petitioner to take a remedial course and file an appropriate application. 5. At this stage, when the impugned punishment order was passed way back in the year 2001, this Court does not consider it appropriate to relegate the petitioner to such remedy. 6. While the respondent ought not to be denied the benefit of the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal, it cannot be ignored that the impugned punishment of compulsory retirement is one which causes limited prejudice to the employee, who is made to live the rest This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/08/2026 at 11:42:37 W.P.(C) 5395/2007 of her life enjoying the full pensionary and other benefits. 7. Considering the totality of circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that it will be in the interests of justice if the relief in the impugned award is substituted with monetary compensation. 8. The impugned award is thus modified to the extent that the direction of reinstatement is set aside and the petitioner is directed to pay a sum of ₹4,00,000/- as lump sum compensation to the respondent. 9. The said amount is directed to be deposited with the Registrar General of this Court within a period of four weeks. The respondent is at liberty to seek release of the amount lying deposited with this Court along with any accrued interest. The amount shall be kept in an interest bearing fixed deposit till its disbursal. 10. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. AMIT MAHAJAN, J AUGUST 11, 2026 “SK” This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/08/2026 at 11:42:37