C.W.P. No. 16176 of 2011 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 16176 of 2011 Date of Decision: Sept. 1, 2011 Nitin Kumar ............................................ Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Panipat and another .............. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Sharad Aggarwal, Advocate for Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for the petitioner. ... RITU BAHRI, J. The workman had filed an application under Section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming the benefit of payment of the salary due in pursuance to the Agreement dated 9.4.2001 (Annexure P1). This application has been dismissed vide order dated 28.2.2011 by the Labour Court (Annexure P4). The Labour Court has accepted the contention of C.W.P. No. 16176 of 2011 [ 2 ] the Management that petitioner was engaged as a Part Time Consultant. In pursuance to the Agreement dated 9.4.2001 (Annexure P1) the workman was paid `50,000/- as advance. He did not carry out the said agreement which was cancelled on 12.4.2001. This is the precise case set up by the Management when they filed reply to the application filed by the workman. Mr. Sharad Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, has not been able to dispute that the Agreement dated 9.4.2001 (Annexure P1) was cancelled on 12.4.2001. He has challenged the award on the ground that it has wrongly held that the petitioner-workman is not covered under the definition of “workman” under Section 2(S) of the Act. It has wrongly come to a conclusion that the petitioner- workman was offering his services as a Consultant. The petitioner was employed to do the job of dyeing since February 1993 on a salary of `1400/- per month. He is entitled to the payment of salary at `16,500/- per month in view of Agreement dated 9.4.2001 to January 2003. Management be directed to pay `3,90,000/-. This argument of the counsel for the petitioner is liable to be rejected on the ground that the specific case of the Management was that the Agreement dated 9.4.2001 was cancelled on 12.4.2001. Petitioner's application for payment of salary in pursuance to the Agreement dated C.W.P. No. 16176 of 2011 [ 3 ] 9.4.2001 (Annexure P1) has been rightly dismissed by the Labour Court. Petitioner was getting `7,000/- salary per month. The finding given by the Labour Court that petitioner was getting the work done of boiling of water, dip, dry and press the fabric goes to prove that he was not doing the job himself and was getting the work done under his supervision. His duty was supervisory in nature. The Management's witness MW1 Sunil Kumar Singal stated that petitioner was engaged in 1997 as a Part Time Consultant and the Agreement executed on 9.4.2001 was not carried out and hence it was cancelled on 12.4.2001. No merit. Dismissed. 1.9.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Rupi JUDGE