IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.14194 of 2009 Date of decision : 8.3.2011 Raj Pal ....Petitioner Versus The Executive Engineer, PWD, Public Health, Division No.2, Panipat, Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present: Mr.Jatinder Kamboj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana for respondent No.1. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The present writ petition has been filed impugning the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat dated 24.3.2009. The petitioner claimed a reference under Section 10 (1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to the effect that whether the termination of his services was legal and justified, or not. The said reference having been forwarded to the Tribunal for adjudication was answered against him. The petitioner had set up a demand while raising an industrial dispute in which he alleged that he had been working with the respondent No.1 as a Sewer Man with effect from April, 1998. He alleged that he C.W.P.No.14194 of 2009 -2- marked his presence on the Muster Rolls during the period from April 1998 to February 2001 but the respondent No.1 showed the petitioner to be a worker under respondent No.2, a contractor. The said contractor was not having any licence and the petitioner was for all intents and purposes the employee of respondent No.1 as his work was taken and supervised by the JE, SDO, etc, all officials of respondent No.1. He alleged that his services were terminated on 1.3.2004 without complying with the provisions of the Act. He further alleged violation of Section 25-F of the Act for re-instatment along with complete back wages. The respondent No.1 refuted the claim as raised by the petitioner and set up a plea that he was an employee of respondent No.2 who had been given the contract for managing the treatment plant. The relationship of an employer and employee was categorically denied. The following issues were framed by the Tribunal :- 1. Whether the services of Sh.Rajpal have been terminated validly or not, if not, whether he is entitled to any relief? 2. Whether the reference is not maintainable against the respondent No.1 as alleged?OPM 3. Relief. Thereafter, the reference was determined against the petitioner leading to the filing of present petition wherein learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the allegation that the petitioner was an employee of respondent No.2 is not correct as the C.W.P.No.14194 of 2009 -3- said company stood wound up in the year 2000. He contended that in the cross-examination the witnesses have admitted that the petitioner was an employee of respondent No.1. He then contended that once this fact is established, then the petitioner concededly had worked for more than 240 days and hence the termination of his services without compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act was clearly illegal and the award necessarily deserves to be set aside. The respondent No.1 filed reply in which they have reiterated the stand taken by them before the Tribunal that the petitioner was not their employee and was an employee of the contractor. Annexure R-2 has been placed on record which is the daily attendance register maintained by respondent No.2 in which the petitioner is shown to have been marked present. It has thus been contended that the petitioner was not their employee but was an employee of respondent No.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned order. The primary contention that the learned counsel for the petitioner raised was that the stand of the respondents was clearly erroneous as the respondent No.2, who is alleged to be the principal employer of the petitioner, stood wound up in the year 2000. Reference has been made to Annexure P-5 which is an order passed by the High Court of Gujarat indicating that the company had been wound up in the year 2000. On the other hand, the respondents have placed on record the attendance register maintained by respondent No.2 regarding its C.W.P.No.14194 of 2009 -4- employees in which name of the petitioner also finds mention. This, however, does not enhance the case of the petitioner, as undeniably the petitioner was working for respondent No.2, which contract was awarded to them in the year 2001, and as per the agreement executed by respondent No.2, they were at liberty to engage workmen for the execution of the contract. There is no material worth the name from where it can be inferred that the petitioner was an employee of respondent No.1 and the only allegation is that his work was being supervised by the officials of respondent No.1. Even if this is to be accepted, then also the petitioner, who has failed to produce any material regarding the employment with respondent No.1, does not deserve any indulgence because to manage their affairs with respondent No.2, respondent No.1 was very well within its right to entrust the job of supervision of its officials and this ipso facto would not confer any status of an employee upon the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any infirmity in the award of the Tribunal. Consequently, the petition is devoid of any merit and is dismissed. 8.3.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss