CWP-24279 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Principal, Sant Nischal Singh Public School, Ladwa, and others Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal another CORAM: Present: KULDEEP 1. Disputes Act, 1947, (for short, ‘the Act favour of respondent No.2 cum-Labour Court, (Annexure P reinstate him to the same post on which he was working prior to his termination last drawn by him, from the date of termination till reinstatement. 2. Court by way of instant writ petition, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Certiorari to quash the (supra). 3. the Haryana Government notification 24279-2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Principal, Sant Nischal Singh Public School, Ladwa, and others Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Ms. Supriya Garg, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (Oral) A reference made under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (for short, ‘the Act of 1947 favour of respondent No.2-workman by the learned Industrial Tribunal Labour Court, Ambala, vide award dated 28.05.2025, (Annexure P-8), thereby, directing the petitioner reinstate him to the same post on which he was working prior to his termination, with continuity of service, along with 50% back wages, as last drawn by him, from the date of termination till reinstatement. Aggrieved, the petitioner-Management has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Certiorari to quash the Learned counsel for the petitioner the Haryana Government notifications IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-24279-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.09.2025 Principal, Sant Nischal Singh Public School, Ladwa, and others ….Petitioners cum-Labour Court, Ambala and ….Respondents KULDEEP TIWARI Ms. Supriya Garg, Advocate, reference made under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial of 1947’), has been answered in by the learned Industrial Tribunal- vide award dated 28.05.2025, , directing the petitioner-Management to reinstate him to the same post on which he was working prior to his with continuity of service, along with 50% back wages, as last drawn by him, from the date of termination till reinstatement. Management has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Certiorari to quash the award earned counsel for the petitioners submits that, in light of dated 08.09.2005, 28.05.2008 5 Labour Court, Ambala and s reference made under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial ’), has been answered in - vide award dated 28.05.2025, Management to reinstate him to the same post on which he was working prior to his with continuity of service, along with 50% back wages, as Management has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition, under Article 226/227 of the award of dated 08.09.2005, 28.05.2008 AMIT KUMAR 2025.09.19 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-24279 (No.18/18/07 which, it was notified that disputes pertaining to are to be adjudicated by specially constituted Educational Tribunals, therefore, jurisdiction to decide the reference notification Hon’ble Supreme Court in Karnataka, 2002 (8) SCC 481 4. (Annexure P of employees of Educational of services, to file appeals would lie before the learned District & Sessions Judge or Additional District & Sessions Judge, till such Tribunals are set up. Further, i dated 07.05.2013, definition of Educational Institutions. Therefore, post issuance of the notification is an Educational Educational Tribunal, for redressal of any dispute. circumstances, jurisdiction to pass the She conclud allowed, thereby setting aside the impugned award. 5. 24279-2025 -2- 8/07-2HBIV), and 07.05.2013 (No.7/4 which, it was notified that disputes pertaining to are to be adjudicated by specially constituted Educational Tribunals, therefore, the learned Industrial Tribunal jurisdiction to decide the reference (supra) notifications (supra), were issued, in compliance to Hon’ble Supreme Court in TMA Pai Foundation and others Vs. State of Karnataka, 2002 (8) SCC 481. She asserts that notification (Annexure P-5), specifically reflects that, of employees of aided/unaided Medical/Dental Ayurvedic/Homeopathic ducational Institutions, who are subjected to punishmen of services, appropriate Tribunals would be constituted. Further, to file appeals would lie before the learned District & Sessions Judge or Additional District & Sessions Judge, till such Tribunals are set up. Further, it is submitted that, through notification No.7/45 dated 07.05.2013, it was clarified that schools are also included in the definition of Educational Institutions. Therefore, post issuance of the notification(s) (supra), any employee working with the peti ducational Institution, has the only remedy to approach the Educational Tribunal, for redressal of any dispute. circumstances, since the learned Industrial Tribunal jurisdiction to pass the award, under challenge, She concludes by submitting that the instant writ petition deserves to be allowed, thereby setting aside the impugned award. No other argument was raised before this Court. and 07.05.2013 (No.7/45-2010 PS(2)), vide which, it was notified that disputes pertaining to Educational Institutions are to be adjudicated by specially constituted Educational Tribunals, Tribunal concerned did not have the (supra). She further submits that the in compliance to the decision of the TMA Pai Foundation and others Vs. State of notification dated 28.05.2008 that, for the redressal of grievances Medical/Dental Ayurvedic/Homeopathic nstitutions, who are subjected to punishment or termination be constituted. Further, the right to file appeals would lie before the learned District & Sessions Judge or Additional District & Sessions Judge, till such Tribunals are set up. through notification No.7/45-2010 PS(2) arified that schools are also included in the definition of Educational Institutions. Therefore, post issuance of the (supra), any employee working with the petitioner, which nstitution, has the only remedy to approach the Educational Tribunal, for redressal of any dispute. In such the learned Industrial Tribunal did not have the challenge, the same is void ab initio. by submitting that the instant writ petition deserves to be allowed, thereby setting aside the impugned award. No other argument was raised before this Court. vide nstitutions are to be adjudicated by specially constituted Educational Tribunals, the . She further submits that the of the TMA Pai Foundation and others Vs. State of dated 28.05.2008 redressal of grievances Medical/Dental Ayurvedic/Homeopathic t or termination right to file appeals would lie before the learned District & Sessions Judge or Additional District & Sessions Judge, till such Tribunals are set up. 2010 PS(2) arified that schools are also included in the definition of Educational Institutions. Therefore, post issuance of the tioner, which nstitution, has the only remedy to approach the In such the void ab initio. by submitting that the instant writ petition deserves to be AMIT KUMAR 2025.09.19 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-24279 6. perused the record 7. Court is, as to whether jurisdiction to adjudicate the reference, and pass the impugned award 8. that the Hon’ble under the Act of 1947, cannot be Ex facie, the issue Division Bench of this Court has already considered of appeals, lead case being Officer, Industrial Tribunal 12.09.2024. relevant part of the verdict (supra), and the same reads as under: 24279-2025 -3- This Court has heard learned cou perused the record. The only question which arises for determination of this is, as to whether, the learned Tribunal concerned has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the reference, and pass the impugned award Before proceeding with the matter, this Court that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that under the Act of 1947, cannot be overpowered , the issue, as referred to above, Division Bench of this Court has already considered of appeals, lead case being LPA-1908-2018 Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and others 12.09.2024. For the sake of clarity, it would be expedient to extract the relevant part of the verdict (supra), and the same reads as under: “ 1. These intra Court appeals have been filed against the order dated 13.09.2018, passed by learned Single Judge, whereby, the challenge made to the award passed by the Labour Court dated 14.03.2017 was upheld. The award dated 14.03.2017, decided the refere regard to illegal termination from service against the workman by holding that in view of the alternative remedy of approaching the educational Tribunal, constituted pursuant to the Apex Court’s decision in Foundation & others vs. Stat 2003(2) SCT 385, the reference was not maintainable. 2. It appears that the Labour Court as well as learned Single Judge were oblivious of the decision of this Court rendered by the Full Bench in the case of Co-op. Bank Limited Ambala Vs State of Haryana and learned counsel for the petitioners, and he only question which arises for determination of this the learned Tribunal concerned has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the reference, and pass the impugned award? Before proceeding with the matter, this Court is reminded Court has categorically held that the remedy overpowered by any special law. , as referred to above, is no more res integra, as a Division Bench of this Court has already considered the same, in a bunch 2018 (Savitri Devi Vs. Presiding Labour Court and others), decided on of clarity, it would be expedient to extract the relevant part of the verdict (supra), and the same reads as under:- 1. These intra Court appeals have been filed against the order dated 13.09.2018, passed by learned Single Judge, whereby, the challenge made to the award passed by the Labour Court dated 14.03.2017 was upheld. The award dated 14.03.2017, decided the reference with regard to illegal termination from service against the workman by holding that in view of the alternative remedy of approaching the educational Tribunal, constituted pursuant to the Apex Court’s decision in ‘T.M.A. Pai Foundation & others vs. State of Karnataka & others’, , the reference was not maintainable. 2. It appears that the Labour Court as well as learned Single Judge were oblivious of the decision of this Court rendered by the Full Bench in the case of ‘Ambala Central . Bank Limited Ambala Vs State of Haryana and , and he only question which arises for determination of this the learned Tribunal concerned has the ed remedy by any special law. as a in a bunch Savitri Devi Vs. Presiding decided on of clarity, it would be expedient to extract the 1. These intra Court appeals have been filed against the order dated 13.09.2018, passed by learned Single Judge, whereby, the challenge made to the award passed by the Labour Court dated 14.03.2017 was upheld. nce with regard to illegal termination from service against the workman by holding that in view of the alternative remedy of approaching the educational Tribunal, constituted T.M.A. Pai , 2. It appears that the Labour Court as well as learned Single Judge were oblivious of the decision of this Court ‘Ambala Central . Bank Limited Ambala Vs State of Haryana and AMIT KUMAR 2025.09.19 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-24279 24279-2025 -4- others’, 1993(2) S.C.T. 310, adjudicated upon by holding thus: “7. In view of the consistent decisions referred to above specifying the scope of the authorities under the Cooperative Societies Act. the Civil Court and the Labour Court and the remedies available there the decision of the Division Bench of this C Kapurthala Central Cooperative Bank Limited v. State of Punjab, (supra), does not lay down the law correctly. In this case it was held that the employee of a Co-operative Society having elected his remedy of filing an appeal under the provision failed there could not get the matter referred through the State to the Labour Court under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was also held in this case that the decision of the authorities under the Cooperative Societies Act, R operative Societies) would operate as res judicata. Since the dispute between the workmen and the Bank in the present case related to establishment of the Society, it could be referred to the Arbitrator under Section 102 and adjudicated Act reproduced above. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court would obviously be barred to challenge those decisions. However, Industrial Disputes Act dealing with the special subject relating to rights of the workman and the management an therein could only be granted by the Court established under the Industrial Disputes Act. Section 128 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act was rightly held to be ultra vires i.e. the remedies available under the Industrial Disputes Act could not be denied to the workman of the management, a Co operative Society. In that sense the order of the Registrar passed under 10, where similar dispute was adjudicated upon by holding thus:- “7. In view of the consistent decisions referred to above specifying the scope of the authorities under the Cooperative Societies Act. the Civil Court and the Labour Court and the remedies available there-under, the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the Kapurthala Central Cooperative Bank Limited v. State of Punjab, (supra), does not lay down the law correctly. In this case it was held that the employee of operative Society having elected his remedy of filing an appeal under the provisions of the Act and failed there could not get the matter referred through the State to the Labour Court under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was also held in this case that the decision of the authorities under the Cooperative Societies Act, Registrar of the Co- operative Societies) would operate as res judicata. Since the dispute between the workmen and the Bank in the present case related to establishment of the Society, it could be referred to the Arbitrator under Section 102 and adjudicated under section 103 of the Act reproduced above. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court would obviously be barred to challenge those decisions. However, Industrial Disputes Act dealing with the special subject relating to rights of the workman and the management and the relief provided therein could only be granted by the Court established under the Industrial Disputes Act. Section 128 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act was rightly held to be ultra vires i.e. the remedies available under the s Act could not be denied to the workman of the management, a Co operative Society. In that sense the order of the Registrar passed under where similar dispute was “7. In view of the consistent decisions referred to above specifying the scope of the authorities under the Cooperative Societies Act. the Civil Court and the under, ourt in the Kapurthala Central Cooperative Bank Limited v. State of Punjab, (supra), does not lay down the law correctly. In this case it was held that the employee of operative Society having elected his remedy of s of the Act and failed there could not get the matter referred through the State to the Labour Court under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was also held in this case that the decision of the authorities under the - operative Societies) would operate as res judicata. Since the dispute between the workmen and the Bank in the present case related to establishment of the Society, it could be referred to the Arbitrator under under section 103 of the Act reproduced above. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court would obviously be barred to challenge those decisions. However, Industrial Disputes Act dealing with the special subject relating to rights of the d the relief provided therein could only be granted by the Court established under the Industrial Disputes Act. Section 128 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act was rightly held to be ultra vires i.e. the remedies available under the s Act could not be denied to the workman of the management, a Co operative Society. In that sense the order of the Registrar passed under AMIT KUMAR 2025.09.19 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-24279 24279-2025 -5- the provisions of the Co cannot be treated as a decision final to operate as res judicata in the Labour Court in a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Obviously when the order itself is under challenge the same cannot operate as res judicata. To sum up, it is held that after the Registrar decides the matter between an employee and employer, a Co regard to the termination of his service under Sections 102 and 103 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 the matter could be referred under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act as an industrial dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication. It is further held that such a decision made by the Registrar under the Haryana Co Act would not operate as res judicata in proceedings initiated on reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act in the Labour Court. 8. The matter be put up before the Division Bench for further proceedings.” 3. It was held by the Full Bench that remedy available under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 cannot be excluded by any other special law. Therefore, it is available to the workman, irrespective of availability of other alternative remedy. As such, it appears that the decision rendered by the Labour Court as well as learned Single Bench, is incuriam the view of Full Bench in the case Central Co-op. Bank Limited Ambala Vs State of Haryana and others’, 1993(2) S.C.T. 310 . 4. Similar view has re on 05.09.2024, while allowing the LPA “Jagjit Singh Vs. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Ludhiana and another”. the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act cannot be treated as a decision final to operate as res he Labour Court in a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Obviously when the order itself is under challenge the same cannot operate as res judicata. To sum up, it is held that after the Registrar decides the matter between an e and employer, a Co-operative Society, with regard to the termination of his service under Sections 102 and 103 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 the matter could be referred under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act as an industrial spute to the Labour Court for adjudication. It is further held that such a decision made by the Registrar under the Haryana Co-operative Societies Act would not operate as res judicata in proceedings initiated on reference under Section 10 of the l Disputes Act in the Labour Court. 8. The matter be put up before the Division Bench for 3. It was held by the Full Bench that remedy available under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 cannot be excluded by any other special law. Therefore, it is available to the workman, irrespective of availability of other alternative ears that the decision rendered by the Labour Court as well as learned Single Bench, is per the view of Full Bench in the case ‘Ambala op. Bank Limited Ambala Vs State of Haryana 1993(2) S.C.T. 310 . 4. Similar view has recently been taken by this Bench on 05.09.2024, while allowing the LPA-1204-2017, titled as Jagjit Singh Vs. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Ludhiana and another”. operative Societies Act cannot be treated as a decision final to operate as res he Labour Court in a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Obviously when the order itself is under challenge the same cannot operate as res judicata. To sum up, it is held that after the Registrar decides the matter between an operative Society, with regard to the termination of his service under Sections 102 and 103 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 the matter could be referred under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act as an industrial spute to the Labour Court for adjudication. It is further held that such a decision made by the operative Societies Act would not operate as res judicata in proceedings initiated on reference under Section 10 of the 8. The matter be put up before the Division Bench for 3. It was held by the Full Bench that remedy available under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 cannot be excluded by any other special law. Therefore, it is available to the workman, irrespective of availability of other alternative ears that the decision rendered by per ‘Ambala op. Bank Limited Ambala Vs State of Haryana cently been taken by this Bench 2017, titled as Jagjit Singh Vs. The Presiding Officer, Industrial AMIT KUMAR 2025.09.19 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-24279 9. any scope for this Court to re settled by the Hon’ble been followed by the Division Bench safely be concluded that petitioner 10. 12.09.202 Ak Sharma 24279-2025 -6- 5. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 3.09.2018, passed by learned award dated 14.03.2017 passed by the Labour Court are set aside.” In view of the position sketched out above, there is hardly any scope for this Court to re-examine the issue, which has already been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and as demonstrated above, has been followed by the Division Bench of this Court safely be concluded that the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner do not carry any merit. In summa, the instant writ petiti .2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 5. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 3.09.2018, passed by learned Single Judge as well as the award dated 14.03.2017 passed by the Labour Court are set In view of the position sketched out above, there is hardly examine the issue, which has already been , and as demonstrated above, has of this Court. Therefore, it can the submissions advanced on behalf of the , the instant writ petition is dismissed. (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE Yes Yes/No 5. In view of the above, the impugned order dated Single Judge as well as the award dated 14.03.2017 passed by the Labour Court are set In view of the position sketched out above, there is hardly examine the issue, which has already been , and as demonstrated above, has it can the submissions advanced on behalf of the AMIT KUMAR 2025.09.19 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document