IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 7164 of 2008. Date of Decision : March 19, 2009. Satish Kumar Kaundal. ...... Petitioner. Versus. Union of India and others. ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Ramesh Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mrs. K.K. Kahlon, Advocate, for the respondent No. 1. Mr. Pankaj Katia, Advocate, for the respondents No. 2 and 3. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present writ petition, prayer has been made for quashing the letter dated 24.09.2007 (Annexure-P-5), whereby the reference has been made by the appropriate Government to the Central Government Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh, praying that the reference should also include P.N.B. Housing Finance respondent No. 3 as he was employed by the said concern. Counsel for the petitioner to buttress the claim of the workman as put forth in his writ petition relies upon report of the Conciliation Officer dated 25.01.2007 (Annexure-P-4) wherein the Assistant Labour Commissioner, who was the Conciliation Officer, had stated that the management of P.N.B. Housing Finance has confirmed that the disputant was never engaged by them but his services were provided by the contractor M/S C.W.P. No. 7164 of 2008. Snack Services and therefore, they are not employer for them and the demand of disputant is illegal and requested to reject the claim. On the last date of hearing i.e. 25.02.2009, counsel for the petitioner had sought time to place on record the advertisement, vide which the post of Peon-cum-Record Keeper was advertised by the respondent No. 3 and he was selected on the basis of interview against sanctioned post. Counsel for the petitioner states today that he does not have the advertisement or any proof with regard to the assertion made by him on the last date of hearing i.e. his appointment was made on the basis of interview against sanctioned post. Further perusal of the report of the Conciliation Officer reliance whereof has been made by counsel for the petitioner shows that it has been clearly spelt out by the management-respondent No. 2 that the employer of the workman was M/S Snack Service. Perusal of Annexure-P-5, the impugned order of reference dated 24.09.2007, would clearly indicate that the reference with regard to the termination of services of the workman was with effect from 12.05.2005 by M/S Snack Service as contractor of P.N.B. Housing Finance (a subsidiary of Punjab National Bank). Whether it is legal and justified has already been referred to the Central Government Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh. In this view of the matter, no illegality can be said to have been committed in the present reference which would call for interference by this Court. In view of the above, the present writ petition stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE March 19, 2009. sjks. -2-