CR No. 3455 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No. 3455 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 24.5.2011. M/s H.M.M. Coaches Ltd. .......Petitioner Vs. Avtar Singh and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... SABINA, J. Respondent No.1 had raised an industrial dispute, vide Annexure P-2, challenging his termination of services. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Ambala vide order dated 14.7.2010 (Annexure P-1). During the pendency of the dispute, petitioner-management moved an application that M/s Unicorn Manpower Agency, Ambala be impleaded as a party. In the said application, it was averred that in order to decide the reference effectively and properly, it was necessary that M/s Unicorn Manpower Agency, Amabala be impleaded as respondent. Vide the impugned order dated 28.4.2011, the said application was dismissed. Hence, the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent No.1 was not an employee of the petitioner. The respondent No.1 was the employee with M/s Unicorn Manpower CR No. 3455 of 2011 (O&M) -2- Agency, Ambala and hence, the said agency was a necessary party. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. The respondent No.1 had raised the industrial dispute claiming himself to be an employee of the petitioner- management. In the written statement, filed by the petitioner before the Labour Court, it has been averred that the respondent No.1 was not an employee of the petitioner-management. A perusal of para 14 of the written statement (Annexure P-3) reveals that it was averred that in case the workman was employed by any contractor, he could not raise the dispute with the management. Thus, in the written statement it has not been specifically pleaded by the petitioner-management that the workman was employed by the contractor M/s Unicorn Manpower Agency, Ambala. The Labour Court will decide the reference on the basis of the evidence led by the parties. The petitioner-management has taken the plea that the workman was not their employee and they can establish the said plea by leading their evidence. Hence, the contractor cannot be said to be a necessary party. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 24, 2011 Gurpreet