CWP No. 12091 of 2018 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (244) CWP No. 12091 of 2018 Date of Decision: 26.08.2026 Sumer Singh .....Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat and Another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Deepak Malik, Advocate for Mr. Vishal Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jagdeep S. Rana, Advocate with Mr. Lokendra Singh, Advocate and Mr. Arvind K. Bangar, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL) 1. The present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 14.02.2017 (Annexure P-4), whereby the petitioner’s application for recalling the original Award dated 20.05.2014 (Annexure P-1) was declined on the ground that, after passing of the Award, no application for its recall is maintainable under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner also seeks modification of the Award to the extent of granting him back wages for the period during which he remained out of service pursuant to the order of termination. 2. As per the pleaded facts, the petitioner-workman was appointed as a Security Incharge in the year 1992. His services were retrenched in 1996, but he was reinstated in 2002. Thereafter, he was charge-sheeted on 26.09.2006 and a domestic enquiry was conducted against him. The RITIKA 2026.09.03 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 12091 of 2018 -2- petitioner alleged that he was not given a proper opportunity to lead evidence or cross-examine the management witnesses and, thereafter, his services were terminated on 11.12.2006. He consequently raised an industrial dispute claiming reinstatement with continuity of service, full back wages and other consequential benefits. The case of respondent No.2- management, however, was that the petitioner was performing supervisory duties and, therefore, was not a “workman” within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was further pleaded that the petitioner had been appointed afresh in 2002, that his work and conduct were unsatisfactory, and that he had committed acts of misconduct on 26.09.2006. According to the management, the petitioner was duly served with a charge- sheet, given a fair opportunity to cross-examine witnesses during the enquiry, and was also supplied with the enquiry report along with a second show-cause notice before his services were terminated by the competent authority on 11.12.2006. The management thus contended that the termination was legal and valid and that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed issues, inter alia, as to whether the termination of the petitioner’s services was legal and valid and, if not, to what relief he was entitled; whether he was a “workman” within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; and whether the reference was maintainable. An additional issue was also framed regarding whether the domestic enquiry conducted against the petitioner was fair and proper. 3. Vide Award dated 20.05.2014, the learned Labour Court modified the punishment of termination by substituting it with the RITIKA 2026.09.03 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 12091 of 2018 -3- punishment of stoppage of two increments for the last two years preceding the petitioner-workman’s retirement. Consequently, the petitioner-workman was held entitled to receive all retiral benefits admissible to him in accordance with law. 4. Aggrieved by the said Award, respondent No.2-management challenged the same by filing CWP No. 21518 of 2014. However, the said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 02.07.2015. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner-workman initiated execution proceedings for implementation of the Award dated 20.05.2014. During the execution proceedings, the Award was implemented and the petitioner- workman received an amount of Rs.1,75,570/- from respondent No.2- management through Cheque No.000889 dated 24.02.2016, which amount was accepted by him under protest insofar as his claim for back wages was concerned. 6. Subsequently, the petitioner-workman filed an application seeking recall of the Award dated 20.05.2014. The said application was dismissed by the learned Labour Court vide order dated 14.02.2017 on the ground that the industrial dispute had already been finally adjudicated and the Award had been passed on 20.05.2014. It was further observed that the Award had already been implemented and the petitioner-workman had accepted a sum of Rs.1,75,570/- from respondent No.2-management. The learned Labour Court further held that there was no specific provision under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 empowering it to recall or review an Award. The Court observed that its powers were limited to rectification of clerical or accidental errors and, in the absence of any statutory provision RITIKA 2026.09.03 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 12091 of 2018 -4- conferring the power of review or recall, it had no jurisdiction to entertain the application or to recall the Award. Consequently, the Court held that it could not grant the petitioner-workman back wages for eight years, as such relief had not been granted under the original Award. Accordingly, the application seeking recall of the Award was dismissed. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 14.02.2017 deserves to be set aside and the Award dated 20.05.2014 be modified to the extent of granting back wages. It is submitted that the petitioner, who was working as Security In-charge, was terminated after an inquiry on the allegation of absence from duty for a short period and alleged misbehaviour. However, the learned Tribunal, exercising powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, found the punishment of termination disproportionate and substituted it with stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect for the last two years preceding his retirement. The said Award was upheld by this Court in the writ petition filed by the Management. 8. Learned Counsel further submits that the petitioner has already received the amount payable under the Award, but the Award inadvertently contains no finding regarding back wages. Since the punishment of termination was substituted with a lesser punishment and the petitioner could not be reinstated only because he had already attained the age of retirement, he is entitled to back wages for the period he remained out of service, subject to adjustment of the punishment of stoppage of increments. It is therefore prayed that the Award be suitably modified and the petitioner be granted the consequential back wages. RITIKA 2026.09.03 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 12091 of 2018 -5- 9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that no illegality or perversity has been shown in the impugned order of the learned Labour Court. It is submitted that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not confer any power upon the Labour Court to review or recall its own Award and, therefore, the application of the petitioner seeking review of the Award dated 20.05.2014 was rightly dismissed. The Award had already attained finality, particularly as the challenge thereto in CWP No.21518 of 2014 was dismissed on 02.07.2015, and the petitioner himself had accepted Rs.1,75,570/- towards implementation of the Award in execution proceedings. It is further submitted that the petitioner had been charge- sheeted and, after a domestic enquiry, his services were terminated on 11.12.2006; however, the Labour Court subsequently substituted the punishment of termination with stoppage of two increments for the last two years. Since the petitioner did not challenge the Award at the relevant time and has approached this Court after a considerable delay, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned award. 11. At the outset, it deserves notice that the petitioner seeks, in substance, a modification of the Award dated 20.05.2014 for grant of back wages, even though the said Award had already been implemented. The petitioner had also accepted an amount of Rs.1,75,570/- towards implementation of the Award, albeit under protest regarding his claim for back wages. The Award was further challenged by the respondent No.2- Management in CWP No.21518 of 2014, which was dismissed on RITIKA 2026.09.03 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 12091 of 2018 -6- 02.07.2015. Thus, the Award had attained finality. 12. The Learned Labour Court rightly held that it had no power to review or recall its own Award in the absence of any specific statutory provision under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The power of review is not an inherent power and must be expressly conferred by statute. After the final adjudication of the industrial dispute and publication of the Award, the Labour Court could not reopen the matter merely for granting an additional relief which had not been awarded originally. Its jurisdiction was limited to correcting clerical or accidental errors and did not extend to a substantive review or modification of the Award. 13. Moreover, the present writ petition has been instituted after an unexplained and substantial delay from the date of the award. The petition is conspicuously silent as regards any sufficient cause for not approaching this Court within a reasonable period. Trite to say that a litigant invoking the discretionary and equitable jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is expected to act with due diligence. In the absence of any satisfactory explanation for the delay, the petitioner cannot, as a matter of course, seek re-examination of an award that has otherwise attained finality. 14. It is well settled that although no period of limitation is prescribed for invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, delay and laches remain a relevant, and in appropriate cases a decisive, factor guiding the exercise of discretion under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. 15. Even otherwise, no ground for interference on merits is made out. The Labour Court, on appreciation of the evidence, found that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the misconduct proved RITIKA 2026.09.03 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 12091 of 2018 -7- against the petitioner. The charge of intoxication was not established, and no duly proved record was produced to show that the petitioner was a habitual absentee. The misconduct essentially related to a single instance of absence and use of improper language towards a fellow employee. Accordingly, exercising its powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Labour Court substituted the punishment of dismissal with stoppage of two increments during the last two years preceding the petitioner’s retirement. 16. The Labour Court also rightly held that the petitioner was a “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Act, as the Management failed to prove that his duties were mainly managerial, administrative or supervisory in nature. Since the petitioner had already attained the age of superannuation, reinstatement was not granted and he was held entitled only to the retiral benefits admissible under law. The Award did not grant back wages, and the learned Labour Court had no power to subsequently review or recall its Award for granting such substantive relief. The findings recorded by the Labour Court are based on the evidence on record and disclose no illegality or perversity warranting interference by this Court. 17. In the considered opinion of this Court, the findings recorded by the Labour Court are founded on evidence. No perversity, patent illegality, jurisdictional error or violation of the principles of natural justice has been demonstrated which would warrant interference in the limited supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. 18. Needless to reiterate that this Court, while exercising powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, does not sit in appeal over RITIKA 2026.09.03 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 12091 of 2018 -8- findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court and cannot re-appreciate the evidence merely because another view may also be possible. 19. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition, being barred by delay and laches and being also devoid of merit, is dismissed. 20. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE August 26, 2026 Ritika Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No RITIKA 2026.09.03 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh