CWP No.18320 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.18320 of 2011 Date of decision:28.09.2011 Dharambir Singh ..... Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court, Panipat and another ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr.Sushil Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** RAJIVE BHALLA, J. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing award dated 21.02.2011 (Annexure P-1), whereby the reference was rejected. Counsel for the petitioner submits that findings recorded by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat, that as the petitioner was an employee of the contractor, there is no relationship of employer and employee, between the petitioner and respondent No.2, ignores the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (in short the 'Act'). It is further argued that as the management has asserted that the petitioner was an employee of a contractor, the onus to establish that the contract was in accordance with the provisions of the Act, lay upon the management. The management has failed to prove that the contractor possessed a valid licence and the management obtained due permission from the CWP No.18320 of 2011 -2- competent authority. The petitioner shall, therefore, be deemed to be an employee of respondent No.2. It is further submitted that as the petitioner has completed 240 days in the year preceding his termination and as no show cause notice was issued or compensation paid in lieu of the notice as required by Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the petitioner's termination is illegal and should, therefore, be set aside. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned award. The stand taken by respondent No.2, that there is no relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and respondent No.2, has been accepted by the Labour Court. It has come on record that the petitioner was working on behalf of M/s Frick India Limited. The petitioner has positively asserted in his demand notice dated 30.03.2003 that he was working on behalf of M/s Frick India Limited. The petitioner has not produced any material to establish his appointment by respondent No.2 or any other documents like wage slip and attendance card etc. to establish the relationship of employer and employee. The Labour Court has rightly held that in the absence of cogent evidence to establish the relationship of employer and employee or that the petitioner has completed 240 days in the year preceding his termination, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The argument that the management has failed to comply with the provisions of the Act was neither pleaded nor urged before the Labour Court. Even otherwise, as the petitioner has pleaded that he was an employee of CWP No.18320 of 2011 -3- respondent No.2, the petitioner cannot be permitted to change his stance while impugning the award passed by the Labour Court. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed. 28.09.2011 [RAJIVE BHALLA] shamsher JUDGE