Jawahar Kumar vs Labour Commissioner Haryana And Another

- 1-
CWP-37069-2026 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
111 CWP-37069-2026(O&M)
Date of Decision: 11.11.2026
JAWAHAR KUMAR
... Petitioner
VS
LABOUR COMMISSIONER, HARYANA AND ANR.
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
Present: Mr. Anil K. Sokal, Advocate
for the petitioner.

KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL)
1. The present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution
of India has been filed seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari
for setting aside the order dated 12.12.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the
Labour Commissioner, Haryana, whereby the application filed by
respondent No.2-M/s Bellsonica Auto Component India Pvt. Ltd. under
Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act'),
seeking approval of the petitioner's dismissal from service, was allowed. A
further prayer has been made for quashing the inquiry report dated
09.05.2024 (Annexure P-5) and the dismissal order dated 12.08.2024
(Annexure P-8), with consequential reinstatement, back wages and
continuity of service.
2. As per the pleaded case, the petitioner joined respondent No.2-
ITHLESH KUMAR
2026.11.13 14:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment
Management on 03.04.2013 as a permanent workman and was working as an

- 2-
CWP-37069-2026 (O&M)
Operator (BA-3) in the Die Maintenance Department, bearing Employee
Code A04130003. He was also an active member of the Bellsonica Auto
Component India Employees Union. The Union had raised a general demand
notice dated 01.04.2022 under Section 2(k) of the Act, which was pending
before the Labour Commissioner, Haryana. During the subsistence of the
aforesaid demands and disputes between the Union and the management, a
tripartite settlement dated 01.06.2023 was arrived at under Section 12(3) of
the Act. The settlement, inter alia, contemplated efforts by the management
and the Union to resolve the employment issues of 17 terminated workmen
and also provided that the management would not take legal or disciplinary
action against any worker with a feeling of revenge. The registration of the
Union was subsequently cancelled by the Registrar, Trade Unions, Haryana,
vide order dated 23.09.2023. The present controversy arises out of an
alleged incident dated 30.11.2023, which is stated to have occurred at the
end of the night shift. As per the management, the petitioner, along with
certain other workmen, was involved in an incident wherein Atul Kumar, an
employee of the Press Shop, was allegedly assaulted and abused. It was
further alleged that when another workman, Rajpal, intervened, the
petitioner physically assaulted and verbally abused him. A charge-sheet
dated 11.12.2023 was accordingly issued to the petitioner. Thereafter, vide
letter dated 22.01.2024, Sh. Virender Singh, Advocate, was appointed as the
Inquiry Officer. The domestic inquiry was conducted on various dates. The
management examined its witnesses, including the alleged victim Rajpal.
The Inquiry Officer, vide proceedings dated 03.05.2024, proceeded ex parte
against the petitioner and concluded the inquiry on 06.05.2024. The inquiry
ITHLESH KUMAR
2026.11.13 14:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

- 3-
CWP-37069-2026 (O&M)
report dated 09.05.2024 held the charges proved.
3. A second show-cause notice dated 08.07.2024 proposing the
punishment of dismissal was issued to the petitioner, to which he submitted
a detailed reply dated 11.07.2024, denying the allegations and questioning
the fairness of the inquiry proceedings. The petitioner alleged that the
Inquiry Officer had acted at the behest of the management, that the alleged
victim had been examined behind his back without affording him an
opportunity of cross-examination and that the disciplinary proceedings were
actuated by an intention to victimise active members of the Union. The
management, however, did not find the explanation satisfactory and
dismissed the petitioner from service vide order dated 12.08.2024. On the
same date, the management paid the petitioner one month's gross wages
amounting to Rs.44,577/- and also remitted his full and final dues. The
management also filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act
before the Labour Commissioner, Haryana, seeking approval of the
dismissal. The application referred to the pendency of the general demand
notice dated 01.04.2022, while also mentioning that the Union which had
raised the demand notice had already been deregistered vide order dated
23.09.2023 and that the application was being filed as a precautionary
measure. The petitioner filed his reply dated 21.11.2024, raising objections
regarding the validity of the domestic inquiry, the alleged violation of
principles of natural justice, the tripartite settlement dated 01.06.2023 and
the alleged victimisation of Union members. The Labour Commissioner,
Haryana, vide the impugned order dated 12.12.2024, allowed the application
and granted approval to the dismissal of the petitioner.
ITHLESH KUMAR
2026.11.13 14:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

- 4-
CWP-37069-2026 (O&M)
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned order
primarily on the ground that the domestic inquiry was conducted in violation
of the principles of natural justice. It is contended that the petitioner was not
duly informed about the dates of the inquiry and that the Inquiry Officer
proceeded ex parte against him without affording a reasonable opportunity
to defend himself. It is further contended that the statement of the alleged
victim, Rajpal, was recorded behind the petitioner's back and that he was
deprived of an opportunity to cross-examine him. The management
witnesses, namely MW-3 and MW-4, are stated to have not witnessed the
incident themselves, and their statements are alleged to be hearsay. It is also
pointed out that the petitioner had addressed a communication dated
10.05.2024 to the Inquiry Officer seeking the next date of hearing, which
was allegedly ignored.
5. Learned counsel further submits that the Labour Commissioner
failed to consider the petitioner's detailed reply and mechanically approved
the dismissal without examining the plea of victimisation and the effect of
the tripartite settlement dated 01.06.2023. It is contended that the
management had agreed not to take retaliatory disciplinary action against
any workman, but proceeded to dismiss the petitioner in breach of the said
settlement. It is also argued that the management had been attempting to
retrench permanent workmen under the guise of disciplinary proceedings
and that the petitioner's dismissal was part of a larger pattern of victimisation
of Union members. The punishment of dismissal is also stated to be
disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.
6. Reliance has been placed upon Straw Board Manufacturing
ITHLESH KUMAR
2026.11.13 14:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

- 5-
CWP-37069-2026 (O&M)
Co. Ltd., Saharanpur v. Govind, [1962] Supp. (3) SCR 618; Jaipur Zila
Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. v. Ram Gopal Sharma, (2002) 2 SCC
244; Lalla Ram v. D.C.M. Chemical Works Ltd., (1978) 3 SCC 1; and
Jitendra Singh Rathor v. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd., AIR
1984 SC 976.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
relevant material on record.
8. The principal question which arises for consideration is whether
the petitioner should be relegated to the statutory remedy available under the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, or whether the facts of the present case
warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary writ
jurisdiction.
9. The impugned order has been passed by the Labour
Commissioner in proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act. The
jurisdiction exercised under the aforesaid provision is limited in nature and
is primarily concerned with examining whether a proper domestic inquiry
has been held, whether a prima facie case for dismissal is made out and
whether the mandatory conditions stipulated in the proviso to Section 33(2)
(b) have been complied with. The grant of approval, by itself, does not
amount to a comprehensive adjudication of the legality and propriety of the
dismissal on all grounds available to the workman.
10. The statutory scheme of the Act provides an independent
remedy to an individual workman challenging his dismissal. Section 2A of
the Act provides that a dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of an
individual workman shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute,
ITHLESH KUMAR
2026.11.13 14:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

- 6-
CWP-37069-2026 (O&M)
notwithstanding that no other workman or trade union is a party to such
dispute. Further, under sub-section (2) thereof, the workman is entitled to
approach the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal directly for adjudication,
after expiry of 45 days from the date of making an application to the
Conciliation Officer for conciliation of the dispute. Sub-section (3)
prescribes a period of three years for making such an application from the
date of termination.
11. In the present case, the petitioner has questioned not merely the
order granting approval but also the very foundation of the disciplinary
proceedings culminating in his dismissal. His principal grievance is that the
domestic inquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural
justice, inasmuch as he was allegedly not duly informed of the dates of
hearing, was proceeded against ex parte and was deprived of an opportunity
to cross-examine the management witnesses, particularly the alleged victim,
Rajpal.
12. On the other hand, the management's case, as reflected in the
inquiry report, is that the petitioner was afforded repeated opportunities to
participate in the proceedings but failed to avail himself of the same,
compelling the Inquiry Officer to proceed ex parte. The petitioner disputes
this version and also relies upon his communication dated 10.05.2024
addressed to the Inquiry Officer.
13. The rival stands thus raise questions concerning the service of
notices, the opportunities actually afforded to the petitioner, the manner in
which the evidence was recorded and the circumstances in which the inquiry
was concluded. These issues, particularly when considered alongside the
ITHLESH KUMAR
2026.11.13 14:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

- 7-
CWP-37069-2026 (O&M)
evidence relied upon by the management, would require examination of the
complete inquiry proceedings and appreciation of the material on record.
14. The petitioner has also relied upon the tripartite settlement
dated 01.06.2023 arrived at between the management and the Union under
Section 12(3) of the Act. It is his contention that the management had agreed
not to take any legal or disciplinary action against a worker with a feeling of
revenge and that his subsequent dismissal was in breach of the said
understanding.
15. A perusal of the settlement shows that it also contemplated
efforts by the management and the Union to resolve the employment issues
of 17 terminated workmen. Whether the disciplinary action initiated against
the petitioner was in any manner connected with the aforesaid settlement, or
was actuated by a retaliatory motive, would require examination of the
relevant circumstances and evidence. No conclusive finding in this regard
can appropriately be returned in the present proceedings.
16. Another aspect raised by the petitioner concerns the general
demand notice dated 01.04.2022, which was relied upon by the management
while seeking approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act. The management
itself disclosed before the Labour Commissioner that the registration of the
Union which had raised the demand notice stood cancelled vide order dated
23.09.2023 and that the approval application was being filed as a
precautionary measure. The Labour Commissioner also noticed that the
demand notice was no longer maintainable, yet proceeded to examine the
application and grant approval. The effect of the cancellation of the Union's
registration upon the pending demand notice and the consequent
ITHLESH KUMAR
2026.11.13 14:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

- 8-
CWP-37069-2026 (O&M)
applicability of Section 33(2)(b) of the Act are issues which would require
examination in the light of the relevant proceedings and the statutory
provisions. This Court would refrain from recording any final finding on the
same in the present proceedings.
17. It is well settled that the availability of an alternative remedy is
not an absolute bar to the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. However, the High Court ordinarily refrains from
exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction where an efficacious statutory
remedy is available, particularly when the controversy involves disputed
questions of fact requiring appreciation of evidence. The exceptions to this
rule have been recognised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Whirlpool
Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai, (1998) 8 SCC 1.
18. In the present case, although the petitioner has alleged violation
of the principles of natural justice in the domestic inquiry, the approval
proceedings before the Labour Commissioner were contested by him by
filing a detailed reply dated 21.11.2024, and arguments were also heard
before the impugned order was passed. The principal grievance regarding
the denial of opportunity in the domestic inquiry involves disputed factual
questions which can be appropriately examined in industrial adjudication.
19. The petitioner has an independent statutory remedy under
Section 2A of the Act, subject to fulfilment of the requirements prescribed
therein, where he can challenge the legality of his dismissal and raise all
permissible grounds, including the validity of the domestic inquiry, alleged
victimisation, the effect of the tripartite settlement and the proportionality of
the punishment.
ITHLESH KUMAR
2026.11.13 14:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

- 9-
CWP-37069-2026 (O&M)
20. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that
the controversy raised by the petitioner is more appropriately examined by
the competent Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal, which is empowered to
undertake a comprehensive adjudication on the basis of the evidence led by
the parties. No exceptional circumstance warranting exercise of
extraordinary writ jurisdiction, in preference to the aforesaid statutory
remedy, has been made out in the facts of the present case.
21. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of
the controversy, the present writ petition is dismissed on the ground of
availability of an efficacious alternative statutory remedy. The petitioner
shall, however, be at liberty to avail the remedy available under Section 2A
of the Act, in accordance with law.
22. It is clarified that all questions of fact and law, including the
validity of the domestic inquiry, the effect of the tripartite settlement, the
alleged victimisation, the applicability of Section 33(2)(b) of the Act and the
legality and proportionality of the punishment, are left open for
consideration by the competent forum. The same shall be decided
independently, uninfluenced by any observation made herein.
23. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand
disposed of.
(KIRTI SINGH)
JUDGE
11.11.2026
Ithlesh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
ITHLESH KUMAR
2026.11.13 14:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment