C.W.P. No. 19844 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 19844 of 2010 Date of Decision 9.11.2010 Pavittar Singh and others -----Petitioners Versus Union of India and others ---Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. G.S. Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioners. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against order dated 01.04.2010 (Annexure P-13) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh (For brevity 'the Tribunal'), while dismissing the Original Application No. 578-PB of 2008 filed by the petitioners. There are categorical findings recorded in para 9 of the order to the effect that petitioners were not able to prove that they were employed directly by the Department. On the contrary, the respondents-Department has placed on record certain affidavits of various officers connected with the work where petitioners were employed to show that they were contractual employees. Accordingly, the Tribunal refused to grant C.W.P. No. 19844 of 2010 -2- relief of according the petitioners' status of temporary mazdoor as per the scheme evolved by the Department. Mr. G.S. Bhatia, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the documents annexed as Annexure P-1 (Colly.) to substantiate that in fact they have been directly engaged by the Department. A perusal of the first document attached collectively as Annexure P-1 shows that some work has been allotted. It does not disclose even the name of anyone nor anything else. By no stretch of imagination it would lead to an inference that the petitioners were employed by the Department of Tele-communication. The position is not improved by the next two documents. In any case, these are pure questions of fact, which cannot be gone into in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. There is, thus, no merit in the petition. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE November 9, 2010 Atul