IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 9738 of 2008 Date of decision: 29th May, 2008 Hari Singh … Petitioner Versus M/s Maruti Udyog Limited and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Sanjay S. Chauhan, Advocate for petitioner. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. Present writ petition has been preferred by Hari Singh son of Maktul Singh c/o President, Merchandise Employees Association. Petitioner claims that he was employed as a Mali with respondent No.1, M/s Maruti Udyog Limited, Delhi Road, Gurgaon on 20th February, 1989 and his services were terminated on 9th March, 1993. This fact is disputed by respondent No.1, M/s Maruti Udyog Limited as they have taken a stand that the petitioner-workman was employee of M/s Bharat Trading Company, therefore, no relationship of employer and employee ever existed between the petitioner-workman and the management-respondent No.1, M/s Maruti Udyog Limited. M/s Bharat Trading Company-respondent Civil Writ Petition No. 9738 of 2008 No.2 repudiated the claim of petitioner-workman by pleading that Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute under Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and therefore, neither the petitioner can be construed as a workman nor respondent No.2 as management. M/s Bharat Trading Company-respondent No.2 has stated that they were contractor for supply of labour under a written contract with respondent No.1, M/s Maruti Udyog Limited under a license and the petitioner was employed as a casual worker (Helper) by respondent No.2 on daily wage basis. Petitioner-workman and both the respondents projected their stand before the Labour Court by leading evidence. Labour Court held that the claim of the petitioner is vague. It is not clarified in his statement whether he is an employee of respondent No.1-M/s Maruti Udyog Limited or that of respondent No.2-M/s Bharat Trading Company. Workman himself appeared as WW-1 and he stated that he was issued identity card, uniform, ESI and PF etc. by respondent No.1-M/s Maruti Udyog Limited and therefore, he is an employee of respondent No.1. Labour Court gave finding of fact that from documentary evidence produced on record and admission made by the petitioner himself as witness, he has failed to prove that he was employee of respondent No.1-M/s Maruti Udyog Limited, rather he was held to be an employee of respondent No.2-M/s Bharat Trading Company. 2 Civil Writ Petition No. 9738 of 2008 We have perused the award of the Labour Court, whereby claim of the petitioner has been declined. The award is just, appropriate and is based upon evidence led. Therefore, no interference is called for. We find no merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE [ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA] JUDGE May 29, 2008 rps 3