MS CIS BUREAUS FACILITY SERVICES vs PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, SAS NAGAR MOHALI — CWP/14529/2026

Case under Industrial Disputes Act Section ARTICLE 226. Disposed: --DISMISSED on 11th May 2026.

CNR: PHHC010755992026

CASE DISPOSED

Next Hearing

11th May 2026

e-Filing Number

03-05-2026

Filing Number

CWP/27313/2026

Filing Date

04-05-2026

Registration No

CWP/14529/2026

Registration Date

07-05-2026

Judge

MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

Coram

MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

Category

18.5 - LABOUR ( 452 )

Judicial Branch

WRITS -I BRANCH

Decision Date

11th May 2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Acts & Sections

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT Section ARTICLE 226

Petitioner(s)

MS CIS BUREAUS FACILITY SERVICES

Adv. GURSHABAD SINGH SANDHU

MS CIS Bureaus Facility Services

Respondent(s)

PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, SAS NAGAR MOHALI

MS CIS Bureaus Facility Services

Harinder Singh

BVC Logistic

Armapro Security Services

Orders

11-05-2026
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

SUMMARY: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed CIS Bureaus Facility Services' writ petition challenging an ex parte labour tribunal award dated January 7, 2025. The court rejected the management's excuses for non-appearance—including pandemic-related tracking issues and office relocation—finding that the company had authorized representation, was properly served, and deliberately chose not to appear. The court upheld the tribunal's award in favor of the workman, finding no ambiguity and holding that the petitioner's grounds for setting aside the award were wholly unmeritorious. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

SUMMARY: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed CIS Bureaus Facility Services' writ petition challenging an ex parte labour tribunal award dated January 7, 2025. The court rejected the management's excuses for non-appearance—including pandemic-related tracking issues and office relocation—finding that the company had authorized representation, was properly served, and deliberately chose not to appear. The court upheld the tribunal's award in favor of the workman, finding no ambiguity and holding that the petitioner's grounds for setting aside the award were wholly unmeritorious. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

Explore other courts

Search Another Case