Civil Writ Petition No. 6571 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 6571 of 2008 Date of decision: April 23, 2008 Kamal Singh … Petitioner Versus P.O. Labour Court and another. … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate for petitioner. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has impugned the award (Annexure P-3) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Gurgaon, vide which the reference was answered against the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that he joined the services of respondent No.2, i.e., M/s Rico Auto Industries Ltd. Malpura Daruhera, Rewari on 15.03.1987 as a Helper and his services were terminated illegally on 22nd March, 1996 without payment of any retrenchment compensation or any advance payment in lieu of one month’s notice. Before the Labour Court, the petitioner examined himself as WW-1 and averred that he was an employee of respondent management. The petitioner also relied upon a temporary identification certificate (Annexure P-4) issued by the management to show that he was serving with respondent No.2. On the other hand, the management denied the relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and the respondent. It has been averred that the workman was never employed by the respondent management and the name of the petitioner does not appear in the record Civil Writ Petition No. 6571 of 2008 2 which the employer has maintained. It has further been averred that construction and alternation of building work of civil nature was assigned to M/s Ram Mehar Singh, contractor and this work was subsequently given to one Om Pal Yadav and the petitioner was employed by the aforementioned contractors and therefore, the petitioner cannot have any claim against the respondent. Learned Labour Court after going into the entire evidence led by the parties, held that there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner was employed by the respondent No.2 and rejected the reference. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner and going through the impugned award, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner had been engaged by the contractors namely M/s Ram Mehar Singh and M/s Om Pal Yadav. There is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner was ever employed by the respondent. In view of the categoric finding of fact recorded by the learned Labour Court, we hold that there is no relationship of employer and workman between the petitioner and respondent No.2. In view of the finding of fact recorded by learned Labour Court, we find no infirmity in the impugned award passed by the Labour Court and accordingly the present writ petition is dismissed. [ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA] JUDGE [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE April 23, 2008 rps