CWP-27729-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 109 CWP-27729-2026 Date of decision: September 03, 2026 Nar Singh ...Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ambala, District Ambala and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Lajpat Rai Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. **** KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India assailing the award dated 05.06.2026 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ambala, whereby the claim petition filed by him under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), seeking reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages, or in the alternative, payment of the differential wages of the post of Fire Operator, came to be dismissed. 2. Briefly stated, as per the pleaded case, the petitioner was appointed on 01.01.2014 on the post of Fireman at Fire Station, Sector-5, Panchkula, on contractual/DC-rate basis, and that his engagement was extended from time to time. Vide order dated 08.08.2018 issued by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Panchkula, the petitioner was posted/ transferred as Fire Operator at Sub Fire Station, Alipur, Barwala, on the basis of his qualification and Heavy Motor Vehicle Driving Licence. ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.09.08 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP-27729-2026 -2- According to the petitioner, he thereafter performed the duties of Fire Operator but continued to be paid wages applicable to the post of Fireman, and despite representations dated 20.02.2019 and 11.03.2019, reminders dated 15.03.2019, 28.03.2019 and 29.03.2019, and a legal notice dated 05.04.2019, no corrective action was taken by the respondents concerned. It is further the case of the petitioner that on account of an incident dated 03.05.2019, in which a fire tender was allegedly negligently handled, a report was engineered against him and he was orally directed on the same date to revert and join duty as Fireman at Fire Station, Panchkula, and was not permitted to continue as Fire Operator. Aggrieved, the petitioner earlier approached this Court by way of filing CWP No.14935 of 2019, which came to be decided on 13.12.2024 with a direction to the respondents concerned to consider adjusting the petitioner as Fireman at an appropriate place. The petitioner thereafter filed LPA No.4 of 2025, which was disposed of with liberty to raise an industrial dispute before the Competent Labour Court, with a further direction that if such a dispute was raised within a period of one month, the same be decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year. In pursuance of the said liberty, the petitioner filed a claim petition dated 10.03.2025 under Section 2-A of the Act, before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ambala, seeking reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages, or alternatively, the differential wages of the post of Fire Operator. The respondents concerned contested the claim, inter alia, on the ground that there was no direct employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and the answering respondents, the petitioner having been engaged through outsourcing service-provider agencies, namely M/s Sampark Services and, subsequently, M/s Radha Krishan Co-op L/C ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.09.08 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP-27729-2026 -3- Society, under Part-I of the Outsourcing Policy of the State Government, and that the petitioner had, in any event, remained absent from duty without authorisation after 03.05.2019, which amounted to misconduct dis-entitling him to any relief. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has primarily assailed the impugned award on the ground that the learned Labour Court materially altered the issue at the stage when the matter had already reached the stage of final arguments. It is submitted that the original issue No.1, as initially framed, concerned the legality of the alleged termination/reversion of the petitioner's services with effect from 03.05.2019 and his entitlement to reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages, whereas, on 05.06.2026 itself, the issue was substituted with a materially different issue confined to whether the petitioner had been transferred/posted as Fire Operator while being paid the salary of a Fireman and whether he was entitled to the difference in salary. It is contended that after such alteration, the petitioner was not afforded any effective opportunity to lead further evidence, summon relevant records, or address the altered controversy, and that the award came to be pronounced on the very same date, resulting in a serious violation of the principles of natural justice and grave prejudice to the petitioner, particularly as his original grievance concerning illegal reversion and reinstatement was never really adjudicated upon. 4. Reliance has also been placed on the evidence of the management witnesses, MW-1 and MW-2, who admittedly conceded that they had no personal knowledge of the petitioner's salary and service record and that the same lay with the outsourcing agency, to contend that the finding on absence of employer-employee relationship is perverse and ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.09.08 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP-27729-2026 -4- contrary to the record, more particularly when the petitioner has consistently been working under the respondent-Corporation since 01.01.2014. 5. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the relevant material on record. 6. The principal issue which arises for consideration is whether the modification of issue No.1 by the learned Labour Court on 05.06.2026, and the consequential pronouncement of the award on the same date, has resulted in denial of a fair opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner contends that the issue originally framed related to the legality of his alleged reversion/termination and his claim for reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages, whereas the modified issue was confined to his alleged posting as Fire Operator and his claim for differential wages. According to him, such alteration at the stage of final arguments fundamentally changed the controversy and left him without an opportunity to lead evidence or otherwise effectively meet the altered issue. 7. The grievance, however, cannot be examined in isolation from the proceedings recorded by the learned Labour Court on the very date on which the issue was modified. A perusal of the order dated 05.06.2026 reveals that it stands recorded therein that issue No.1 was modified with the consent of the learned Authorised Representatives for the parties. The modified issue related to whether the petitioner had been posted as Fire Operator while being paid the salary of a Fireman and whether he was entitled to the difference in wages. 8. What is of still greater significance is that the same order records that, after modification of the issue, the learned Authorised Representatives stated that they did not wish to lead any fresh evidence and ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.09.08 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP-27729-2026 -5- that the matter be decided on the basis of the evidence already brought on record. The matter was thereafter taken up for final arguments. 9. The aforesaid circumstances substantially answer the petitioner's grievance. There is a material distinction between a case where an adjudicating authority unilaterally introduces a new controversy at the stage of final adjudication and proceeds to decide it without affording an opportunity to the affected party, and a case where the issue is modified with the consent of the parties and the parties thereafter consciously elect not to lead any further evidence. The present case falls in the latter category. The record, therefore, does not support the suggestion that the petitioner was confronted with an altered controversy behind his back or was prevented from placing further material before the Labour Court. 10. The petitioner has, in fact, not been able to point out any actual prejudice occasioned to him. No particular witness whom he wished to examine, no specific document which he intended to summon, and no other material which he was prevented from bringing on record has been identified. Equally, there is nothing to indicate that, after modification of the issue, his Authorised Representative sought time either to lead additional evidence or to address the modified issue separately. The plea of prejudice thus remains a general assertion, unsupported by any corresponding circumstance appearing from the record. 11. In these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate. Having consented, through his Authorised Representative, to the modification of issue No.1 and having expressly stated that no fresh evidence was required, he cannot, after the award has gone against him, turn around and contend that the procedure so adopted ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.09.08 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP-27729-2026 -6- deprived him of a fair opportunity. The principle against approbation and reprobation, as recognised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Cauvery Coffee Traders, Mangalore v. Hornor Resources (International) Co. Ltd.”, (2011) 10 SCC 420, squarely applies to such a situation. 12. Viewed in this backdrop, the plea of violation of natural justice also cannot be sustained. Natural justice undoubtedly requires that a party be afforded a meaningful opportunity to present its case. But the record in the present case does not disclose denial of such an opportunity. Rather, it shows participation in the proceedings, consent to the modification of the issue and a conscious decision to rely upon the evidence already led. In the absence of any demonstrated prejudice, the mere fact that the award followed on the same date cannot, by itself, render the adjudication contrary to the principles of natural justice. 13. Even otherwise, the petitioner's challenge to the award on merits does not lead to a different conclusion. His submissions with regard to the evidence of MW-1 and MW-2, the nature of his engagement and his alleged entitlement to the wages of a Fire Operator essentially require this Court to reassess the evidence and substitute its own view for that taken by the Labour Court. Such an exercise does not fall within the ordinary scope of supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. 14. The jurisdiction of this Court in such matters is supervisory and not appellate. Interference with an award is justified where the findings are perverse, based on no evidence, suffer from a jurisdictional error or patent error of law, or where a violation of natural justice has resulted in demonstrable prejudice. No such infirmity has been established in the present case. The fact that the management witnesses may not have had ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.09.08 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP-27729-2026 -7- personal knowledge of every aspect of the petitioner's salary or service record does not, by itself, render the findings of the learned Labour Court perverse. The evidence has to be appreciated as a whole, and the findings under challenge cannot be characterised as findings based on no evidence or as findings which no reasonable adjudicating authority could have reached. 15. Once the principal challenge to the procedure adopted by the learned Labour Court fails, the prayer for remand necessarily falls with it. A remand is warranted where the adjudication has been vitiated by denial of a fair opportunity or some other material procedural infirmity. It cannot be directed merely to provide a second opportunity to a party who participated in the proceedings, consented to the course adopted by the adjudicating authority and thereafter failed to demonstrate any prejudice arising from it. The present case does not disclose any circumstance warranting such a course. 16. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court finds no perversity, jurisdictional error, patent error of law or violation of the principles of natural justice warranting interference with the impugned award dated 05.06.2026. The principal challenge based upon modification of issue No.1 is untenable in view of the express consent recorded before the learned Labour Court, the decision not to lead fresh evidence and the absence of any demonstrated prejudice. 17. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. 18. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (KIRTI SINGH) September 03, 2026 JUDGE Ithlesh Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.09.08 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment