HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.4273 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 01.08.2011 **** Neebu Lal . . . . Petitioner VS. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Faridabad . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. BB Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner **** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner-workman is aggrieved by the Award dated 30.10.2009 (Annexure P3) passed by the Labour Court, Faridabad whereby the reference – as to whether the termination of the service of the petitioner was justified or not? – has been answered against him. The Labour Court has held that the petitioner was never an employee of the respondent-Management and that the relationship of employer-employee could not be proved. The Labour Court has further held that the services of the petitioner were in fact hired by a contractor. The only proof produced by the petitioner to establish the relationship was the Photostat copy of the payment register Mark ‘A’ and Mark ‘B’ and/or the deposit of Provident Fund by the CWP No.4273 of 2011.doc - 2 – Management. Suffice it to mention here that an establishment is not absolved of its statutory liability to contribute Provident Fund under the Employees’ Provident Fund Act even when it takes work through the contractor. However, the relationship of employer- employee has to be established under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, ‘the Act’) in order to further prove that the non-compliance of Section 25 of the Act has rendered the termination of services illegal. In the instant case, the Labour Court, on consideration of the evidence produced by the Management, has observed that :- “On the other hand the evidence of the respondent in the shape of statement of MW1 Santosh Kumar Arya clearly shows that Nimbu Lal claimant was working with the contractor and for different period he has worked with different contractors. Earlier he worked with Hira Lal in 1991-92 vide Ex.M1 to M2 where on these documents signatures of the claimant are there. Similarly from 1993 he was with Rakesh Contractor the documents Ex.M3 and Ex.M4 shows this fact. Similarly then he worked with Hira Lal from 1997-98. The copy of wages Ex.M5 to M6. The copy of the written has CWP No.4273 of 2011.doc - 3 – been produced Ex.M7 and M8. So in this way document Ex.M1 and M8 clearly shows that the claimant was the worker of the contractor and not of the respondent. Hence claimant has failed to prove that he was working with the respondent. So there is no relationship of employer and employee between the parties. So issue No.1 is decided against the claimant.” (2). The above finding of fact being based upon appreciation of the documentary evidence, calls for no interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. (3). Dismissed. Dasti. 01.08.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge