IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 1282 of 2001. Date of Decision : February 04, 2009. Ram Gopal. .... Petitioner. Versus. The State of Haryana and others. ...Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present: Mr. A.S. Virk, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. P.K. Mutneja, Advocate, for the respondent No. 3. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present writ petitioner, the challenge is to the order dated 22.09.1999 (Annexure-P-3) and order dated 15.11.2000 (Anneuxre-P-5), vide which the reference as sought for by the petitioner claiming the dispute to be referred to the Labour Court, has been declined by the appropriate Government on the ground that there is no relationship of master and servant between the petitioner and respondent No. 3. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the workman was appointed by the management of respondent No. 3 in February, 1995. Thereafter, the certificate of registration was issued by the Government of Haryana on 11.06.1997 (Annexure-R-1) under Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, and Rules made thereunder to M/S E.E.L. Limited C.W.P. No. 1282 of 2001. (respondent No. 3) to get the work done through the contractor. According to this M/S S.D.S. Security Private Limited, New Delhi, was assigned work of loading-unloading, house keeping and gardening by employing labour. It is, therefore, contended that thereafter the workman was appointed by M/S S.D.S. Security Private Limited, New Delhi, (respondent No. 3) and he continued to work with them till his service were terminated on 21.10.1998. He contends that a demand notice was issued and on the basis of the reply submitted by the respondent No. 3 and on further report submitted by the Labour and Conciliation Officer, Circle-I, Gurgaon, the matter was referred to the Government for taking decision thereon. The Government on consideration of the said matter has rejected the reference on the ground that the workman was not working with the management and instead he was working with the contractor. Counsel for the petitioner on the basis of demand notice contends that the appointment of the contractor was a fictitious appointment and is totally in violation of Sections 7 and 12 of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, and hence, the petitioner is the employee of the management. Basing his contention on this, he contends that the ground which has been taken by the Government for rejecting the reference is not sustainable. He further contends that this would clearly show that there is a dispute which needs to be adjudicated upon and therefore, this is a fit case where the reference should have been made by the Government to the Labour Court so that the issue could be decided. He relies upon the Judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Dhanbad Colliery Karamchari Sangh Versus Union of India and others, 1991 Supplementary (2) S.C.C. 10, and in the case of Steel Authority of -2- C.W.P. No. 1282 of 2001. India Limited Versus Union of India, 2006 (4) S.C.T. 481, to contend that the appropriate Government while exercising jurisdiction under Section 10 of the Industrial disputes Act, cannot ignore important factors with regard to the nature of appointment of the workman. The Government has to apply its mind on the relevant material before it and for that it has to reach a prima- facie conclusion as to whether there was a relationship of workman and the employer. He on this basis contends that the orders impugned herein, therefore, cannot be sustained. On the other hand, counsel for the State contends that there is a specific certificate of registration granted under Sub section 2 of Section 7 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, and the Rules made thereunder by the Government under which M/S E.E.L. Limited respondent No. 3 has been given the permission to get the work done through contract labour employed by the contractor one of which was M/S S.D.S. Security Private Limited, New Delhi. He contends that the documents which have been placed on record clearly indicate that his appointment has been made by the contractor and he was therefore an employee of the contractor and there did not exist any relationship of master and servant between the petitioner and respondent No. 3. On the basis of the particulars which have been supplied and the documents attached thereto, the Government on application of its mind, has formed an opinion that since there is no relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and respondent No. 3, therefore, no dispute which would fall within the ambit of Industrial Disputes Act could be said to have been in existence or there was any apprehension of such dispute. He, therefore, supports the impugned order passed by the State Government. -3- C.W.P. No. 1282 of 2001. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions put forth by counsel for the parties and am in agreement with the submissions made by counsel for the respondent that the petitioner was an employee of contractor M/S S.D.S. Security Private Limited, New Delhi, and there existed no relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and M/S E.E.L. Limited (respondent No. 3). This is amply clear from the certificate of registration dated 11.06.1997 (Annexure-R-1) and the declaration form submitted by the petitioner workman Annexure-R-3. Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same is hereby dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE February 04 , 2009. sjks. -4-