IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 5943 of 2009. Date of Decision : April 21, 2009. Ram Kishan Sahani. ....... Petitioner. Versus. H.M.T. Limited, Pinjore, District Panchkula, and others. ....... Respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Atul Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioner. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 29.07.2008 (Annexure-P-2), passed by the Labour Court, Ambala, vide which the reference has been answered against the workman, holding therein that there was no relationship of employer and employer between the petitioner and respondents No. 1 and 2 as he was not engaged by respondents No. 1 and 2 but by the contractor i.e. J.K. Building Security Services (Registered)-respondent No. 3, who was the contractor for providing the labour. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the findings as recorded by the Labour Court, are not sustainable as while terminating the services of the workman, no notice, show cause, inquiry or reason for termination the services, have been given to the petitioner nor provisions as contained in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, have been complied with. He contends that the workman was appointed with the respondents No. 1 and 2 and was continuing as such under the control and supervision of respondents No. 1 and 2, and therefore, for all intends and purposes, he was the employee C.W.P. No. 5943 of 2009. of respondents No. 1 and 2. He, therefore, contends that the findings as recorded by the Labour Court, may not be sustained. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. Perusal of the award clearly indicates that the services of the workman, who was appointed through contractor, namely, J.K. Building Security Services (Registered), and respondents No. 1 and 2 were not the employers of the workman. Documents have been placed on record by the respondents No. 1 and 2, according to which the contract for supplying the security personnel was given to M/s J.K. Building Security Services (Registered), New Delhi, for the period 01.04.2000 to 31.03.2001. This was done in pursuance to the tender invited by the respondents No. 1 and 2, notification whereof was issued on 21.02.2000 and 07.03.2000. This period of contract which was initially for one year, was further extended on oral basis and the same came to be terminated on 31.03.2005. Respondents No. 1 and 2 have also placed on record the letter dated 01.03.2005, issued by respondent No. 3 to the petitioner and eight other employees to report at Head Office, Delhi, after 31.03.2005, for further instructions. In the said letter it was also mentioned that T.A./D.A. will be paid at Head Office to these employees. All these documents go to prove beyond doubt that the services of the workman was engaged by the contractor respondent No. 3 and not by respondents No. 1 and 2. That being the position, the findings as recorded by the Labour Court, cannot be faulted with as the same is based on the evidence which has been produced by the parties before the Labour Court. Finding no merit in this writ petition, the same stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE April 21, 2009. sjks. Whether referred to the Reporter – Yes/No. -2-