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
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
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
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.
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