Punjab And Chandigarh Medical And Sales Representatives Union v. Department Of Labour

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP-28328-2025 Date of Decision : September 26, 2025 PUNJAB AND CHANDIGARH MEDICAL AND SALES REPRESENTATIVES UNION -PETITIONER V/S STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

-RESPONDENTS

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

Present:

Mr. Chirag Suri, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Pardeep Bajaj, D.A.G., Punjab.

*** KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL) 1.

The instant writ petition impugns the order dated 15.12.2021, whereby the respondent No.1, from among the demands made by the petitioner through Demand Notice dated 12.01.2021, referred only one demand to the Labour Court concerned for adjudication. Moreover, a prayer has also been made for setting aside the order dated 07.09.2025, whereby the petitioner's application for issuance of a corrigendum and for referring the entire dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court concerned was declined by the respondent No.1.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the demand notice dated 12.01.2021 and submits that all the demands embodied therein ought to have been referred for adjudication to the Labour Court concerned at the relevant time, which, however, was not done. This propelled the petitioner to file an application seeking issuance of a corrigendum to the reference. However, without consideration on merits DEVINDER YADAV 2025.09.29 08:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

CWP-28328-2025 and without assigning any reasons, the said request was declined by the respondent No.1 vide the impugned order dated 07.09.2025. 3.

This Court has made a studied survey of the record available before it and the inference stemming therefrom is that the petitioner is making an endeavour to delay the proceedings on one ground or the other. It appears that the application for issuance of corrigendum was moved with an intent to further delay the adjudication of the reference. 4.

Furthermore, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to satisfy this Court as to how, after an unexplained delay of approximately four years, the concerned authority is obliged to entertain the petitioner's application for issuance of a corrigendum to the reference. Moreover, having examined the demand notice (supra), this Court finds that, in light of the petitioner's counsel's failure to demonstrate any compelling reason before this Court, no adjudication is warranted by the Labour Court in respect of the demands not referred for adjudication.

5.

In summa, the instant writ petition is dismissed, being devoid of merit. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to, in case grievance still survives, file a fresh demand notice before the authority concerned. 6.

It is, however, clarified that any such fresh Demand Notice, if filed, shall not be construed as an impediment by the Labour Court in adjudicating the reference already pending before it. (KULDEEP TIWARI) September 26, 2025 JUDGE devinder Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether Reportable :

Yes/No DEVINDER YADAV 2025.09.29 08:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment