CWP-222140-2026 (O&M) -1- IIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGGARH 106 CWWP-22140-2026 (O&M) Datte of Decision: 27.07.2026 MAHESHH SINGH ... Petitioner VS LABOURR COMMISSIONER, HARYAANA AND ANR. ... Respondents CORAMM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Anil K. Sokal, Advocate for the petitioner. **** KIRTI SIINGH, J. (ORAL) 1) The present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitutiion of India has been filed praaying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside orderr dated 19.11.2024 (Annexure P-1)P passed byy the Labour Commissioner, Harryana, whereby the application fiiled by responndent No.2-M/s Bellsonica Autoo Component India Pvt. Ltd. unnder Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputtes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Acct'), seeking appproval of the petitioner's dismisssal from service, was allowed; anda for conseqquential reinstatement with backk wages and continuity of servicee. 2) The facts, briefly stated, are that the petitioner joinned respondennt No.2-Management in the year 2011, initially throughh a SWARNJIT SINGH contractorr, and was later made permaneent; admittedly, no complaint wasw 2026.07.31 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-222140-2026 (O&M) -2-

received aagainst him regarding his work pperformance between 2011 to 20021. The petitiioner was also a member of the Bellsonica Auto Component Inndia Employeees Union, whose registration camme to be cancelled by the Registtrar, Trade Unnions, Haryana, vide order datedd 23.09.2023, on the ground thaat it had enrollled a contractual workman as aan ordinary member in violationn of the Tradee Unions Act, 1926 and its own rules. A chargesheet daated 17.05.20222 was issued to the petitionner alleging submission of fakef educationnal documents at the time of reccruitment; it is the petitioner's casec that simillar chargesheets were issued too about 50 other workmen on the same alleegation. A domestic inquiry wwas constituted, and Sh. Virennder Singh, AAdvocate, was appointed as IInquiry Officer vide letter daated 29.06.20222. During the inquiry, the pettitioner sought recruitment-relaated criteria/poolicy documents vide letter daated 16.07.2022, which were not furnished by the Management. The petitioner places reliance onn a communiccation of the Assistant Labour CCommissioner, Circle-6, Gurugraam, dated 13.005.2023, recording that no docuuments were sought from workmmen at the time of recruitment regarding their qualifications. The Inquiry Officcer, however, submitted his report dated 166.08.2022 holding all the charrges proved. AA show cause notice dated 08 .01.2024 proposing dismissal wasw thereafterr issued, to which the petitioner replied on 12.01.2024 denying the charges aand alleging bias; the petitionerr was dismissed from service videv order dateed 07.06.2024, along with a fulll and final settlement of even d ate. On the ssame date, respondent No.2 filled the application under Secttion 33(2)(b) oof the Act before the Labour CCommissioner, Haryana, citing the

SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.31 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-222140-2026 (O&M) -3- pendencyy of a general demand notice aas the subsisting industrial disppute necessitatting such approval. The petitionner filed his reply dated 29.08.20024 before thee Labour Commissioner, inter aalia contending that the applicattion ought to hhave been made under Section 333(1)(b) in view of pending geneeral demand notices dated 05.08.2021, 122.11.2021 and 01.04.2022 andd a tripartite ssettlement dated 01.06.2023 prooviding for reinstatement of certtain dismissedd workmen, and that the dommestic inquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justiice. Vide the impugned order daated 19.11.20224, the Labour Commissioner alllowed the application and approvved the dismiissal, holding, inter alia, that tthe domestic inquiry was fair anda proper annd satisfied the guidelines in Suur Enamel and Stamping Wo rks Ltd. v. WWorkmen, 2008-LLR-619 (SC), that the three conditions under the proviso too Section 33(2)(b)-namely, acttion of dismissal, payment of oneo month's wwages, and filing of the approvall application-stood duly satisfiedd on the recor d, and that the petitioner's obbjection regarding applicability of Section 33(1)(b) was misplaced, the appllication having been correctly fiiled under Secction 33(2)(b).

3) Learned counsel for the petitiioner assails the impugned orderr on the followwing grounds: firstly, that the dommestic inquiry was vitiated for wantw of naturaal justice, inasmuch as the MManagement failed to produce the recruitme nt criteria/policy documents souught by the petitioner, and the repport of the As sistant Labour Commissioner ddated 13.05.2023, recording thatt no documentts were sought from workmen aat the time of recruitment, rendders the very ccharge of 'fake documents' inherrently untenable; secondly, that the SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.31 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-222140-2026 (O&M) -4-

petitionerr's dismissal was directly conneccted with pending general demaand notices annd ongoing union activities, and the application ought to have been made undder Section 33(1)(b), and not Seection 33(2)(b), of the Act; thirddly, that the LLabour Commissioner failed too take cognizance of the triparrtite settlement dated 01.06.2023 arrived at under Section 12(3) of the Act,A providingg for reinstatement of dismissed workmen; fourthly, that there wasw an unexpplained delay of about twenty--two months between the inquuiry report datted 16.08.2022 and the dismisssal order dated 07.06.2024, durring which pe riod the petitioner was allegedly pressured to resign or acceppt a Voluntaryy Retirement Scheme, consistent with a pattern of similar dismisssals of other wworkmen on the same 'fake doccument' charge; and lastly, that the mandatoryy conditions under the proviso to Section 33(2)(b) and the Moodel Standing Orders were not properly compplied with, and that the punishmment of dismisssal is, in any event, disproportioonate to the alleged misconduct. In support oof these submissions, learned coounsel places reliance upon Jaippur Zila Sahaakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd . v. Ram Gopal Sharma, (20022) 2 SCC 244; Lalla Ram v. D.C.M. Chemiical Works Ltd., (1978) 3 SCCC 1; and Jitenndra Singh Rathor v. Shree Baaidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd., AIR (19884) SC 976. 4) I have heard learned counsell for the petitioner and perused the relevant mmaterial on record.

5) Taking up the question of mmaintainability first, the impugnned order has been passed by the Competent AAuthority in exercise of jurisdicttion under Secction 33(2)(b) of the Act, proceeedings whereunder are of a limiited SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.31 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-222140-2026 (O&M) -5-

and summmary nature, confined to exammining whether a proper domestic enquiry hhas been held, whether a prima fafacie case for dismissal is made out,o and whethher the conditions of the provisso have been complied with; suuch approval does not amount to an adjuddication upon the legality of the dismissal on merits. The Act provides a complete and efficacious statuttory mechanismm for redressal: by virtue of SSection 2A, an individual disppute relating tto dismissal is deemed to be an industrial dispute capable of adjudicatiion by the Labour Court/Industtrial Tribunal, and where, as heere, approval hhas been granted under Section 333(2)(b), the workman is entitledd to invoke Seection 33-A before the very authhority before which the underlyying dispute iss pending, as explained in Jaippur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikkas Bank Ltdd. (supra). While the availabilityy of an alternative remedy is nott an absolute bbar to the exercise of jurisdictionn under Article 226 but only a self-imposed rrestriction which this Court ordinnarily observes save where the writw is foundedd on enforcement of a fundamenntal right, violation of the principples of naturall justice, or an order wholly wiithout jurisdiction or under a viires challenge , as explained in Whirlpool C orporation v. Registrar of Traade Marks, MMumbai, (1998) 8 SCC 1, nonee of these exceptions is attractedd on the facts oof the present case, and no otherr exceptional circumstance has been pleaded oor demonstrated warranting a devviation from the rule of exhausttion of statutorry remedies.

6) That apart, even on a primma facie view of the record, anda without inn any manner foreclosing the ffuller examination that the Labbour Court/Inddustrial Tribunal alone is compettent to undertake on evidence, noone SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.31 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-222140-2026 (O&M) -6-

of the groounds urged appears, at this staage, to make out a case warrantting interferennce. On the conduct of the dommestic inquiry, the impugned orrder records, upon an examination of the guidelines in Sur Enamel anda Stampingg Works Ltd. (supra), that the ppetitioner was duly informed of the charges, tthat management witnesses wer e examined and cross-examinedd in his presennce, and that he was afforded oppportunity to lead his own evidennce; the plea oof bias founded on non-supplyy of recruitment-related documeents and the AAssistant Labour Commissioner'ss communication dated 13.05.20023, while a matter meriting serious conssideration, is more appropriattely examinedd by the Labour Court upon eviddence rather than in summary writw proceedinngs against an order passed undeer Section 33(2)(b). On the questtion of applic ability of Section 33(1)(b) as opposed to Section 33(2)(b), the impugnedd order records a specific findingg that the application was correcctly filed undeer Section 33(2)(b); whether thhe general demand notices and the tripartite settlement dated 01.06.2023 rellied upon by the petitioner in factf constituteed a subsisting industrial dispuute connected with his individdual dismissal,, so as to attract Section 33(1)((b) instead, is a mixed questionn of fact and law that the Labour Court/Inddustrial Tribunal is best placedd to examine upon evidence. On compliannce with the proviso to Secttion 33(2)(b), the record shows that the actionn of dismissal, the payment of oneo month's wwages along with full and final ddues, and the filing of the approoval applicatioon, were all effected on 07.06.20024, and this finding of simultaneeity has not beeen shown to be perverse.

7) The claim of an unexplainedd delay between the inquiry repport SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.31 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-222140-2026 (O&M) -7- and the ddismissal order, the allegation oof pressure to opt for a Volunttary Retiremennt Scheme, and the claim of a brroader pattern of similar dismisssals of other wworkmen, are all factual matters requiring appreciation of evidennce and are nnot capable of being conclusivvely resolved on the face of the impugnedd order in writ jurisdiction. As to proportionality, given that the charge of submission of fake educatiional documents at the time of recruitme nt stood proved in the domeestic inquiry, the punishment of dismissal does not, prima facie, appear soo shockingly disproportionate ass to itself eviddence mala fides, though this tooo remains open for assessmentt by the Labouur Court under the principles exxplained in Jitendra Singh Rathhor (supra). 8) These observations are madde only for the limited purposee of considerinng whether interference under AArticles 226/227 is called for at thist stage, andd shall not preclude the petitioneer from agitating any of these isssues on meritss, and on evidence, before the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunnal, which shaall decide the same uninfluencedd by anything said herein.

9) Accordingly, this Court is n ot inclined to entertain the pressent writ petitiion. The same is dismissed as not maintainable at this stage; the petitionerr is at liberty to avail the apprropriate statutory remedy availaable under Secctions 2A and/or 33-A of the Inddustrial Disputes Act, 1947, as maym be advisedd. 10) It is, however, clarified thatt this Court has expressed no fiinal opinion on the merits of the controversy, and all questions, factual and leggal, are left oopen to be urged before the ccompetent Labour Court/Industtrial SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.31 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-222140-2026 (O&M) -8- Tribunal. 11) Pending miscellaneous ap plication(s), if any, also staand disposed oof. (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE 27.07.20226 SwarnjitS Whether sppeaking/reasoned : Yes/N/No Whether repportable : Yes/N/No SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.31 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-222140-2026 (O&M) -1- IIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGGARH 106 CWWP-22140-2026 (O&M) Datte of Decision: 27.07.2026 MAHESHH SINGH ... Petitioner VS LABOURR COMMISSIONER, HARYAANA AND ANR. ... Respondents CORAMM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Anil K. Sokal, Advocate for the petitioner. **** KIRTI SIINGH, J. (ORAL) 1) The present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitutiion of India has been filed praaying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside orderr dated 19.11.2024 (Annexure P-1)P passed byy the Labour Commissioner, Harryana, whereby the application fiiled by responndent No.2-M/s Bellsonica Autoo Component India Pvt. Ltd. unnder Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputtes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Acct'), seeking appproval of the petitioner's dismisssal from service, was allowed; anda for conseqquential reinstatement with backk wages and continuity of servicee. 2) The facts, briefly stated, are that the petitioner joinned respondennt No.2-Management in the year 2011, initially throughh a SWARNJIT SINGH contractorr, and was later made permaneent; admittedly, no complaint wasw 2026.07.31 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-222140-2026 (O&M) -2-

received aagainst him regarding his work pperformance between 2011 to 20021. The petitiioner was also a member of the Bellsonica Auto Component Inndia Employeees Union, whose registration camme to be cancelled by the Registtrar, Trade Unnions, Haryana, vide order datedd 23.09.2023, on the ground thaat it had enrollled a contractual workman as aan ordinary member in violationn of the Tradee Unions Act, 1926 and its own rules. A chargesheet daated 17.05.20222 was issued to the petitionner alleging submission of fakef educationnal documents at the time of reccruitment; it is the petitioner's casec that simillar chargesheets were issued too about 50 other workmen on the same alleegation. A domestic inquiry wwas constituted, and Sh. Virennder Singh, AAdvocate, was appointed as IInquiry Officer vide letter daated 29.06.20222. During the inquiry, the pettitioner sought recruitment-relaated criteria/poolicy documents vide letter daated 16.07.2022, which were not furnished by the Management. The petitioner places reliance onn a communiccation of the Assistant Labour CCommissioner, Circle-6, Gurugraam, dated 13.005.2023, recording that no docuuments were sought from workmmen at the time of recruitment regarding their qualifications. The Inquiry Officcer, however, submitted his report dated 166.08.2022 holding all the charrges proved. AA show cause notice dated 08 .01.2024 proposing dismissal wasw thereafterr issued, to which the petitioner replied on 12.01.2024 denying the charges aand alleging bias; the petitionerr was dismissed from service videv order dateed 07.06.2024, along with a fulll and final settlement of even d ate. On the ssame date, respondent No.2 filled the application under Secttion 33(2)(b) oof the Act before the Labour CCommissioner, Haryana, citing the

SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.31 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-222140-2026 (O&M) -3- pendencyy of a general demand notice aas the subsisting industrial disppute necessitatting such approval. The petitionner filed his reply dated 29.08.20024 before thee Labour Commissioner, inter aalia contending that the applicattion ought to hhave been made under Section 333(1)(b) in view of pending geneeral demand notices dated 05.08.2021, 122.11.2021 and 01.04.2022 andd a tripartite ssettlement dated 01.06.2023 prooviding for reinstatement of certtain dismissedd workmen, and that the dommestic inquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justiice. Vide the impugned order daated 19.11.20224, the Labour Commissioner alllowed the application and approvved the dismiissal, holding, inter alia, that tthe domestic inquiry was fair anda proper annd satisfied the guidelines in Suur Enamel and Stamping Wo rks Ltd. v. WWorkmen, 2008-LLR-619 (SC), that the three conditions under the proviso too Section 33(2)(b)-namely, acttion of dismissal, payment of oneo month's wwages, and filing of the approvall application-stood duly satisfiedd on the recor d, and that the petitioner's obbjection regarding applicability of Section 33(1)(b) was misplaced, the appllication having been correctly fiiled under Secction 33(2)(b).

3) Learned counsel for the petitiioner assails the impugned orderr on the followwing grounds: firstly, that the dommestic inquiry was vitiated for wantw of naturaal justice, inasmuch as the MManagement failed to produce the recruitme nt criteria/policy documents souught by the petitioner, and the repport of the As sistant Labour Commissioner ddated 13.05.2023, recording thatt no documentts were sought from workmen aat the time of recruitment, rendders the very ccharge of 'fake documents' inherrently untenable; secondly, that the SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.31 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-222140-2026 (O&M) -4-

petitionerr's dismissal was directly conneccted with pending general demaand notices annd ongoing union activities, and the application ought to have been made undder Section 33(1)(b), and not Seection 33(2)(b), of the Act; thirddly, that the LLabour Commissioner failed too take cognizance of the triparrtite settlement dated 01.06.2023 arrived at under Section 12(3) of the Act,A providingg for reinstatement of dismissed workmen; fourthly, that there wasw an unexpplained delay of about twenty--two months between the inquuiry report datted 16.08.2022 and the dismisssal order dated 07.06.2024, durring which pe riod the petitioner was allegedly pressured to resign or acceppt a Voluntaryy Retirement Scheme, consistent with a pattern of similar dismisssals of other wworkmen on the same 'fake doccument' charge; and lastly, that the mandatoryy conditions under the proviso to Section 33(2)(b) and the Moodel Standing Orders were not properly compplied with, and that the punishmment of dismisssal is, in any event, disproportioonate to the alleged misconduct. In support oof these submissions, learned coounsel places reliance upon Jaippur Zila Sahaakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd . v. Ram Gopal Sharma, (20022) 2 SCC 244; Lalla Ram v. D.C.M. Chemiical Works Ltd., (1978) 3 SCCC 1; and Jitenndra Singh Rathor v. Shree Baaidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd., AIR (19884) SC 976. 4) I have heard learned counsell for the petitioner and perused the relevant mmaterial on record.

5) Taking up the question of mmaintainability first, the impugnned order has been passed by the Competent AAuthority in exercise of jurisdicttion under Secction 33(2)(b) of the Act, proceeedings whereunder are of a limiited SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.31 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-222140-2026 (O&M) -5-

and summmary nature, confined to exammining whether a proper domestic enquiry hhas been held, whether a prima fafacie case for dismissal is made out,o and whethher the conditions of the provisso have been complied with; suuch approval does not amount to an adjuddication upon the legality of the dismissal on merits. The Act provides a complete and efficacious statuttory mechanismm for redressal: by virtue of SSection 2A, an individual disppute relating tto dismissal is deemed to be an industrial dispute capable of adjudicatiion by the Labour Court/Industtrial Tribunal, and where, as heere, approval hhas been granted under Section 333(2)(b), the workman is entitledd to invoke Seection 33-A before the very authhority before which the underlyying dispute iss pending, as explained in Jaippur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikkas Bank Ltdd. (supra). While the availabilityy of an alternative remedy is nott an absolute bbar to the exercise of jurisdictionn under Article 226 but only a self-imposed rrestriction which this Court ordinnarily observes save where the writw is foundedd on enforcement of a fundamenntal right, violation of the principples of naturall justice, or an order wholly wiithout jurisdiction or under a viires challenge , as explained in Whirlpool C orporation v. Registrar of Traade Marks, MMumbai, (1998) 8 SCC 1, nonee of these exceptions is attractedd on the facts oof the present case, and no otherr exceptional circumstance has been pleaded oor demonstrated warranting a devviation from the rule of exhausttion of statutorry remedies.

6) That apart, even on a primma facie view of the record, anda without inn any manner foreclosing the ffuller examination that the Labbour Court/Inddustrial Tribunal alone is compettent to undertake on evidence, noone SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.31 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-222140-2026 (O&M) -6-

of the groounds urged appears, at this staage, to make out a case warrantting interferennce. On the conduct of the dommestic inquiry, the impugned orrder records, upon an examination of the guidelines in Sur Enamel anda Stampingg Works Ltd. (supra), that the ppetitioner was duly informed of the charges, tthat management witnesses wer e examined and cross-examinedd in his presennce, and that he was afforded oppportunity to lead his own evidennce; the plea oof bias founded on non-supplyy of recruitment-related documeents and the AAssistant Labour Commissioner'ss communication dated 13.05.20023, while a matter meriting serious conssideration, is more appropriattely examinedd by the Labour Court upon eviddence rather than in summary writw proceedinngs against an order passed undeer Section 33(2)(b). On the questtion of applic ability of Section 33(1)(b) as opposed to Section 33(2)(b), the impugnedd order records a specific findingg that the application was correcctly filed undeer Section 33(2)(b); whether thhe general demand notices and the tripartite settlement dated 01.06.2023 rellied upon by the petitioner in factf constituteed a subsisting industrial dispuute connected with his individdual dismissal,, so as to attract Section 33(1)((b) instead, is a mixed questionn of fact and law that the Labour Court/Inddustrial Tribunal is best placedd to examine upon evidence. On compliannce with the proviso to Secttion 33(2)(b), the record shows that the actionn of dismissal, the payment of oneo month's wwages along with full and final ddues, and the filing of the approoval applicatioon, were all effected on 07.06.20024, and this finding of simultaneeity has not beeen shown to be perverse.

7) The claim of an unexplainedd delay between the inquiry repport SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.31 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-222140-2026 (O&M) -7- and the ddismissal order, the allegation oof pressure to opt for a Volunttary Retiremennt Scheme, and the claim of a brroader pattern of similar dismisssals of other wworkmen, are all factual matters requiring appreciation of evidennce and are nnot capable of being conclusivvely resolved on the face of the impugnedd order in writ jurisdiction. As to proportionality, given that the charge of submission of fake educatiional documents at the time of recruitme nt stood proved in the domeestic inquiry, the punishment of dismissal does not, prima facie, appear soo shockingly disproportionate ass to itself eviddence mala fides, though this tooo remains open for assessmentt by the Labouur Court under the principles exxplained in Jitendra Singh Rathhor (supra). 8) These observations are madde only for the limited purposee of considerinng whether interference under AArticles 226/227 is called for at thist stage, andd shall not preclude the petitioneer from agitating any of these isssues on meritss, and on evidence, before the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunnal, which shaall decide the same uninfluencedd by anything said herein.

9) Accordingly, this Court is n ot inclined to entertain the pressent writ petitiion. The same is dismissed as not maintainable at this stage; the petitionerr is at liberty to avail the apprropriate statutory remedy availaable under Secctions 2A and/or 33-A of the Inddustrial Disputes Act, 1947, as maym be advisedd. 10) It is, however, clarified thatt this Court has expressed no fiinal opinion on the merits of the controversy, and all questions, factual and leggal, are left oopen to be urged before the ccompetent Labour Court/Industtrial SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.31 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-222140-2026 (O&M) -8- Tribunal. 11) Pending miscellaneous ap plication(s), if any, also staand disposed oof. (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE 27.07.20226 SwarnjitS Whether sppeaking/reasoned : Yes/N/No Whether repportable : Yes/N/No SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.31 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document