CWP-438-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA (112) M/s Super Metal Shyam Sunder and others CORAM: Present: KULDEEP TIWARI 1. the Constitution of India, the exparte award (Annexure P the application exparte award (supra), was dismissed. 2. the reference was answered in favour of the respondent No.1/workman he was awarded the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages. 3. issuance of notice of mot ready and willing to 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH M/s Super Metal Versus Shyam Sunder and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Navmohit Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1/workman. **** KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL) Through the instant writ petition, cast under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/Management, has challenged the award(s) dated 21.05.2018 (Annexure P (Annexure P-6), as well as, order dated 16.10.2025 (Annexure P the application preferred by the petitioner/Management, for setting aside the award (supra), was dismissed. Through the impugned award dated 24.05.2018 (Annexure P the reference was answered in favour of the respondent No.1/workman he was awarded the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages. Learned counsel for the petitioner/Management, at the time of issuance of notice of motion, in the instant petition, submitted that they are ready and willing to reinstate the respondent No.1/workman. However, they 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-438-2026 Date of Decision : 23.04.2026 …Petitioner ...Respondents KULDEEP TIWARI , Advocate Through the instant writ petition, cast under Article 226/227 of /Management, has challenged the 2018 (Annexure P-5) and dated 24.05.2018 , as well as, order dated 16.10.2025 (Annexure P-9), whereby, preferred by the petitioner/Management, for setting aside the dated 24.05.2018 (Annexure P-6), the reference was answered in favour of the respondent No.1/workman, and he was awarded the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and Learned counsel for the petitioner/Management, at the time of ion, in the instant petition, submitted that they are reinstate the respondent No.1/workman. However, they Through the instant writ petition, cast under Article 226/227 of /Management, has challenged the and dated 24.05.2018 9), whereby, preferred by the petitioner/Management, for setting aside the 6), , and he was awarded the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and Learned counsel for the petitioner/Management, at the time of ion, in the instant petition, submitted that they are reinstate the respondent No.1/workman. However, they MANPREET SINGH 2026.04.24 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-438-2026 wish to raise the issue only with regard to 50% back wages, awarded to respondent No.1/workman. limited purpose, as to whether, the respondent No.1/workman, is entitled for 50% back wages, or not, notice of motion was issued. 4. counsel for wages may be reduced to 30%, instead of 50%. 5. concerned, Court modifies the impugned award to the extent, that respondent No.1/workman, is entitled for with continuit 6. respondent No.1/workman, in view of the demand notice served by him. 7. is concerned, he is directed to cause appearance before Labour Commissioner concerned, on 30.04.2026, upon which, the latter No.1/workman, joins the duty with the petitioner/Management. 8. April 23, 202 Manpreet 2026 wish to raise the issue only with regard to 50% back wages, awarded to respondent No.1/workman. On the basis of the above submission, for the limited purpose, as to whether, the respondent No.1/workman, is entitled for 50% back wages, or not, notice of motion was issued. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as, learned respondent No.1/workman, have reached wages may be reduced to 30%, instead of 50%. In view of the above consensus arrived at between the parties concerned, the instant writ petition is disposed modifies the impugned award dated 24.05.2018 (Annexure P to the extent, that respondent No.1/workman, is entitled for with continuity of service and 30% back wages. The petitioner/Management, shall pay the back wages to nt No.1/workman, in view of the demand notice served by him. So far as, the issue of rejoining of the respondent No.1/workman is concerned, he is directed to cause appearance before Labour Commissioner concerned, on 30.04.2026, upon which, the latter No.1/workman, joins the duty with the petitioner/Management. Ordered accordingly. 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2 wish to raise the issue only with regard to 50% back wages, awarded to On the basis of the above submission, for the limited purpose, as to whether, the respondent No.1/workman, is entitled for 50% back wages, or not, notice of motion was issued. counsel for the petitioner, as well as, learned respondent No.1/workman, have reached at consensus that back wages may be reduced to 30%, instead of 50%. In view of the above consensus arrived at between the parties disposed of, and consequently, this dated 24.05.2018 (Annexure P-6), only to the extent, that respondent No.1/workman, is entitled for reinstatement y of service and 30% back wages. The petitioner/Management, shall pay the back wages to nt No.1/workman, in view of the demand notice served by him. So far as, the issue of rejoining of the respondent No.1/workman is concerned, he is directed to cause appearance before Labour Commissioner concerned, on 30.04.2026, upon which, the latter shall ensure that respondent No.1/workman, joins the duty with the petitioner/Management. (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No wish to raise the issue only with regard to 50% back wages, awarded to On the basis of the above submission, for the limited purpose, as to whether, the respondent No.1/workman, is entitled for counsel for the petitioner, as well as, learned at consensus that back In view of the above consensus arrived at between the parties this only reinstatement The petitioner/Management, shall pay the back wages to So far as, the issue of rejoining of the respondent No.1/workman is concerned, he is directed to cause appearance before Labour Commissioner shall ensure that respondent MANPREET SINGH 2026.04.24 14:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment