LPA No. 96 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 96 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision 30.06.2010 Harchand Singh -----Petitioner Versus Labour Court Bhatinda and another ---Respondents LPA No. 97 of 2010 (O&M) Bhag Masih -----Petitioner Versus Labour Court Bhatinda and another ---Respondents LPA No. 98 of 2010 (O&M) Gurcharan Singh -----Petitioner Versus Labour Court Bhatinda and another ---Respondents LPA No. 390 of 2010 (O&M) Gurcharan Singh -----Petitioner Versus Labour Court Bhatinda and another ---Respondents LPA No. 391 of 2010 (O&M) Budh Singh -----Petitioner Versus Labour Court Bhatinda and another ---Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. Sarjit Singh, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Shika Sharma, Advocate for the appellant(s). 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. Kumar, J. This is a set of five Letters Patent Appeals preferred by the LPA No. 96 of 2010 (O&M) -2- workmen against the judgment dated 21.04.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of a number of writ petitions after referring to agreement dated 19.06.1967, which was admitted by both the parties. The learned Single Judge has concluded that the nature of engagement of the claimant/workman was purely that of a commission agent of the company, namely, Food Specialties Limited Moga. The agreement had defined the rights and responsibilities of the commission agent. The learned Single Judge has noticed that the labour court took into account the documentary as well as oral evidence to conclude that there was no relationship between the appellant and the company, which may be styled as relationship of an employer and employee. The learned Single Judge also placed reliance on the finding recorded by the Labour Court in the award that the appellant was not its employee for a long time before the alleged date of termination of his service. Learned Single Judge also referred to the issues framed by the Labour Court and placed reliance on the definition of 'industrial dispute' in Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity 'the Act'), as finding has been recorded that there was no relationship of employer and employee between appellant and the management, there was no industrial dispute and there could not have been a reference as has been made under Section 10 of the Act. Accordingly, the view taken by the Labour Court was upheld and the writ petitions were dismissed. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant at a LPA No. 96 of 2010 (O&M) -3- considerable length, we are of the view that the finding recorded by the Labour Court as well as by the learned Single Judge are unexceptionable when it is concluded that there was no relationship of employer and employee between management and the appellant and consequently there cannot be any industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the Act. Accordingly, no reference could have been made under Section 10 of the Act. The learned Single Judge has rightly taken the view that the relationship between the management and the appellant was that of principal and agent. The aforesaid finding is based on agreement dated 19.06.1967, which has been quoted by the learned Single Judge. There is, thus, no merit in these appeals. Consequently, the appeals fail and the same are dismissed. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected cases. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (A.N. JINDAL) JUDGE June 30, 2010 Atul