Civil Writ Petition No. 289 of 1989 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 289 of 1989 Date of Decision: 22.12.2008 Rattan Pant and Others …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Dinesh Ghai, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Jayender Singh Chandail, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No.1. Dr. Balram Gupta, Senior Advocate with Ms. Anamika Negi, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) This writ petition has been preferred by 114 petitioners who claim themselves to be working in the Mess run in various students' hostels of the respondent-Kurukshetra University. The petitioners have been employed as Head Cook, Second Cook, Counterman, Pantryman, Helper, Ward Boys, Behra etc. Their claim n the present writ petition is that they are Class-IV employees of the University and they have completed more than 380 days in the job. This claim has been disputed by the University. Dr. Balram Gupta, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Anamika Civil Writ Petition No. 289 of 1989 2 Negi, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the University has stated that the petitioners are employees of Mess Committee of the Hostel which is being managed and run by the students. Therefore, they cannot be termed as employees of University. No appointment letter has been placed on the record. The appointment of the petitioners is also not in accordance with the rules of the University. Therefore, claim of regularization of the petitioners cannot be entertained in the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the University has relied upon Annexure R1 to state that relationship of University and the employee has not been established. To controvert this, learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that in a dispute under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, it has been held that, that relationship of employer and employee under the Minimum Wages Act is not established. Learned counsel further states that dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act has wider connotations and the Labour Court can always examine import of order (Annexure R1). There being disputed questions of fact, to determine relationship of employer and employee is not in domain of writ jurisdiction. Petitioners, if so desire, are at liberty to take the recourse to lawful remedy available to them except the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that they may be relegated to the Labour Court for settlement of their dispute under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1948. Learned counsel further states that petitioners are continuing in the service due to stay order Civil Writ Petition No. 289 of 1989 3 passed by this Court since 1989. Since there is a long stay operating in favour of the petitioners for the last 19 years, in case the petitioners give a demand notice and raise industrial dispute they be allowed to continue in service till their demand notice is decided, thereafter, Labour Court may pass appropriate orders. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the petitioners are also not being paid minimum wages as determined by the Deputy Commissioner, from time to time. This prayer has not been raised in the writ petition. The petitioners will be at liberty to take recourse to the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 again if same is permissible. Needless to say if the petitioners are covered under the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, minimum wages shall be granted to them. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge December 22, 2008 “DK”