$~4 * IN THEHIGH COURTOF DELHIAT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010298442023 + W.P.(C) 10203/2023&CM APPL. 39525/2023 PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Niraj Kumar and Mr. Sourabh Mahla, Advocates versus MS. MADHU GOHAR .....Respondent Through: Ms. Ritu Rastogi, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI O R D E R % 23.09.2026 1. The present writ petition pertains to a challenge to the award dated 25.03.2022 passed by the learned CGIT-cum-Labour Court-II in ID No.20/2009. The impugned award came to be passed in the context of the industrial dispute raised by late Shyam Lal Gohar, represented through his legal heirs, pursuant to the following reference made to the learned Tribunal: “Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank in terminating the services of the workman Shri Shyam Lal Gohar, sweeper w.e.f. 30.01.2003 is just, fair and legal? What relief the workman concerned is entitled to and from which date?” 2. As per the claim statement, the Shyam Lal Gohar was appointed as a sweeper/peon on 04.09.1993 by the petitioner/Bank on a basic monthly 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 30/09/2026 at 13:09:26 salary of Rs.740/- at its branch at ICD Tughlaqabad, New Delhi. Though no appointment letter was issued, it was claimed that the nature of work performed by him was perennial. Besides carrying out the work of sweeping, the workman was also discharging duties as a peon by visiting other branches of the Bank for clearance of cheques etc., for which he was paid TA. It was further claimed that his salary was directly deposited in his bank account maintained with the petitioner/Bank. 3. The workman further claimed that his wife, Ms. Madhu Gohar, was also working as a sweeper in the same Bank and that, being satisfied with their work, the then Branch Manager had recommended both of them for appointment as full-time sweepers. It was stated that although the workman continued to perform his duties from 04.09.1993 till 23.10.2006, the Bank did not pay his salary for the period from 01.02.2003 to 23.10.2006. According to him, he was orally informed in September 2006 that his services stood terminated with effect from 30.01.2003 and that, in his place, his wife had been appointed.The claim was accompanied by a letter addressed to the National Commission for SafaiKaramcharis as well as to the Bank. It was also disclosed that the workman had earlier approached this Court by way of W.P.(C) No.4161/2007, which was dismissed with liberty to approach the appropriate forum. 4. Upon notice being served, the Bank contested the claim and denied the existence of an employer-employee relationship. It was, however, stated that the workman had worked only as a part-time sweeper and was engaged on a casual basis. It was further stated that he had never been engaged through any regular process of appointment. Reliance was also placed upon the conciliation settlement dated 07.05.1984 entered into with the All India 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 30/09/2026 at 13:09:26 PNB Employees Federation, under which vacancies of full-time sweepers were to be filled from amongst part-time sweepers working on ½, ¾ or full wage, on the basis of seniority determined by converting the service rendered at 1/3, ½ or ¾ of the scale wage into full-time service. 5. Before theTribunal, the workman examined himself and placed on record various documents. The Bank examined one Jawahar Singh Dagar, Senior Branch Manager. During the pendency of the proceedings, the workman died and his legal heirs were brought on record. 6. The Tribunal, upon consideration of the pleadings and evidence, returned a finding that the workman had been working as a part-time sweeper under the supervision and control of the Bank from 04.09.1993 to 23.10.2006. It further held that the termination was in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and in this regard, relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in “Surendra Kumar Verma and Others vs. CGIT Delhi”1. Since the workman had died during the pendency of the proceedings, reinstatement was not possible and hence, theTribunalawarded compensation in lieu thereof.Accordingly, the Bank was directed to release arrears of wages for the period from 31.01.2003 to 23.10.2006 at the rate of the last drawn salary, alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of accrual till the date of actual payment. The Tribunal also awarded compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- towards illegal termination in lieu of reinstatement, with further directions regarding interest. 7. Before this Court, Learned counsel for the petitioner has primarily contended that the claim preferred by the deceased workman was marred by 1(1980) 4 SCC 443 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 30/09/2026 at 13:09:26 contradiction. It is submitted that while the reference proceeds on the basis that his services were terminated with effect from 30.01.2003, the workman had claimed that he continued to work till 23.10.2006. It is further contended that there was insufficient material before the learned Tribunal to establish the employer-employee relationship or to show that the workman had completed 240 days of service. 8. A perusal of the proceedings would show thatthe alleged contradiction regarding the date of termination was specifically considered by the learned Tribunal. The case of the workman, as set out in his claim, was that although he continued to work till 23.10.2006, his wages were withheld and it was only in September 2006 that he was informed that his services were being treated as terminated with effect from 30.01.2003. Thus, the reference to 30.01.2003 as the date from which the termination was treated as effective and 23.10.2006 as the date till which the workman claimed to have actually worked cannot, by itself, be treated as an irreconcilable contradiction.The said contention was also not taken by the petitioner either in its written statement or by way of any suggestion put to the workman during his cross-examination. 9. TheTribunal also considered the copies of the attendance record, vouchers evidencing payments made to the workman, internal correspondence of the Bank and, significantly, correspondence emanating from the Bank itself wherein the workman was described as a temporary/part-time sweeper. The Tribunal also noticed the correspondence dated 14.02.2004 concerning the seniority of the temporary sweepers, as well as the communication dated 14.09.2001 issued by the Chief Manager 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 30/09/2026 at 13:09:26 calling upon the workman to explain the alleged irregularities in his duties, wherein he was described as a part-time sweeper. 10. The Tribunal had further noticed that the workman had specifically sought production of the attendance register, wage register and other records from the Bank. The said records were not produced by the petitioner and the workman was consequently permitted to lead secondary evidence and placed on record photocopies of the attendance register, internal correspondence and vouchers showing payments made to him. The Tribunal thereafter considered these documents alongwith the oral evidence of the parties. 11. At this stage, it is also necessary to bear in mind the limited scope of interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. In “Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan &Ors.”2, the Supreme Court has held that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is supervisory and not appellate. Findings of fact arrived at by a Tribunal upon appreciation of evidence cannot ordinarily be reopened in writ proceedings. Interference may be warranted where there is an error of jurisdiction, an error of law apparent on the face of the record, or where the finding is based on no evidence or is vitiated by the erroneous admission or rejection of material evidence. Tested on the aforesaid parameters, the challenge raised by the petitioner does not disclose any such error warranting interference. The Tribunal considered the documentary as well as oral evidence and returned a finding that the deceased workman was engaged as a part-time sweeper under the supervision and control of the Bank. The material noticed by the Tribunal included documents emanating from the Bank itself which 2AIR 1964 SC 477 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 30/09/2026 at 13:09:26 described the workman as a part-time/temporary sweeper, apart from the attendance record, vouchers and other correspondence. The finding, therefore, cannot be said to be based on no evidence. 12. The contention of the petitioner essentially seeks a re-appreciation of the evidence and a different inference to be drawn from the documents already considered by the learned Tribunal. Such an exercise would amount to this Court sitting in appeal over the findings of the Tribunal, which is not permissible in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 13. The contention regarding non-completion of 240 days of service also does not persuade this Court to interfere with the impugned award. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the material before it, had first recorded a finding regarding the engagement of the workman and his continued service with the Bank and thereafter examined the legality of the termination with reference to Section 25F of the Act. 14. No other contention having been raised, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned award. The same is accordingly upheld. 15. The amount directed to be deposited by the petitioner, with the Registrar General of this Court, in compliance with the order dated 04.08.2023 shall be released to the respondent. Any arrears towards interest, in terms of the impugned award, shall also be paid within a period of four weeks. 16. The petition, alongwith pending application, stands disposed of. MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2026 sn 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 30/09/2026 at 13:09:26