07.07.2025 V RAJ BALDEV RAJ v. ING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TR L TRIBUNAL, AMBALA AND PRESIDING OTHERS
Case Details
CWP-9368-20 Other connecte 2025 and nnected matters -1- IN THE NJAB AND HARYANA THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB GARH AT CHANDIGARH 122+244 (05 c (05 cases) CWP-9368-2025 DECIDED ON : 07.07.2025 V RAJ BALDEV RAJ .....PETITIONER V/S ING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TR L TRIBUNAL, AMBALA AND PRESIDING OTHERS .....RESPONDENTS 2. CWP-5128-2025 SHIV CHARA HARAN …. PETITIONER V/S INDUSTRIAL OTHERS RIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR BOUR COURT, AMBALA AND 3. .....RESPONDENTS CWP-11099-2025 RAVINDER K DER KUMAR …. PETITIONER V/S ESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL IAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR THE PRESIDI COURT, AM AMBALA AND OTHERS …. RESPONDENTS 4. CWP-8004-2025 SUNIL KUMA KUMAR …. PETITIONER V/S Anju Goel 2025.07.10 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP-9368-20 Other connecte 2025 and nnected matters -2- PRESIDING COURT AND ING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TR AND OTHERS L TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR 5. …. RESPONDENTS CWP-8198-2025 AMAR BAHA BAHADUR …. PETITIONER V/S PRESIDING COURT AND ING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TR AND OTHERS L TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR …. RESPONDENTS 6. CWP-85 8588-2025 PAWAN KUM KUMAR …. PETITIONER V/S PRESIDING COURT AND ING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TR AND OTHERS L TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR …. RESPONDENTS CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
HON'BLE MR. HARSIMRAN RAN SINGH SETHI Present : Mr.Rajesh Punj, Advocate Mr. Sarvesh Rattan, Advocate Mr. Sahaj Punj, Advocate for the petitioner (s) in CWP Nos. 8198 of 2025. P Nos.8588, 9368, 5128, 8004 and Mr. Abhishek Dhull, Legal Aid C for the petitioner in CWP-11099 Aid Counsel 1099-2025. Mr. Nitin Rathee, Legal Aid Coun for the petitioner in CWP-5128- d Counsel -2025. Anju Goel 2025.07.10 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP-9368-20 Other connecte 2025 and nnected matters -3- l.A.G., Haryana Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, Addl.A.G. for respondents No.2 to 4. Mr. Vishal Goel, Advocate for respondent No.5 in CWP Nos. 8198 of 2025. P Nos.5128, 11099, 8004, 8588 & **** HARSIMRAN MRAN SINGH SETHI, J (ORAL) 1. By this common order, a set of si six writ petitions, the details of which have be ave been given in the heading, are b , are being disposed of as all the petitions invol involve the same question of law on s w on similar facts. 2. For the sake of convenience, fac ce, facts are being drawn up from CWP No.9368 o.9368 of 2025. 3. In the present writ petition, chal n, challenge is to the award dated 16.10.2024 (A 24 (Annexure P-5) of the Labour Cou ur Court by which, the claim of the petitioner(s) that their services have been te een terminated in violation of the provisions of t ns of the Industrial Disputes Act, 194 ct, 1947 has not been accepted and their claims ha ims have been rejected. 4. It may be noticed that as per per the facts brought on record respondents N ents No.2 to 4 requested to responden ondent No.5-Hartron Work Station for supply of ly of work force as, recruitment thr ent through the direct recruitment process throug through the proper channel was pen as pending. Keeping in view the request made b made by the respondents No.2 to 4 to o 4 to respondent No.5 i.e. Hartron Work Station, tation, the petitioners were engaged in in service for a period of three months w.e.f. w.e.f. 18.07.2011 to 17.10.2011. 011. Hartron Work Station i.e. respondent No ent No.5, the outsourcing agency, sele selected the required people and placed there i there in services before respondents dents No.2 to 4. It may also be Anju Goel 2025.07.10 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP-9368-20 Other connecte 2025 and nnected matters -4- noticed that d that during the pendency of the con e contract period for the contract between resp respondents No.2 to 4 and res d respondent No.5, the regular appointment of workers was made and the w the work force as supplied by the Hartron Work Work Station was sent back by r by respondents No.2 to 4 and ultimately, the ly, the services of the petitioners-work workmen with respondents came to an end. 5. The petitioner(s) raised a dispute ispute against such termination by making respon respondent No.5 i.e. the outsourcing urcing agency a party, which was proceeded aga against exparte and ultimately, ke ely, keeping in view the fact that respondent No ent No.5 had not participated in the in the proceedings, awards were passed by La by Labour Court in favour of the p the petitioners-workmen granting them the benef benefit against the termination. 6. The said awards were challeng allenged by respondent No.5 i.e. outsourcing a ing agency by filing various wri s writ petitions including CWP No.3893 of 2 of 2015 as well as CWP No. 326 o. 3266 of 2015 and all those 12 petitions were were decided by a Co-ordinate Bench Bench of this Court on 08.02.2024 and the awar awards impugned therein were set set aside and the cases were remanded bac d back to the Labour Court for deci r deciding afresh after giving due opportunities nities of hearing to respondent No.5 i No.5 i.e. the outsourcing agency to lead the eviden evidence. 7. After granting the opportunity, a ity, a fresh award has been passed by Labour Cou ur Court which awards have been imp en impugned in the present petition wherein, the c , the claim of the petitioner(s)-workm workmen has been rejected on the ground that t that there exists no master and s and servant relationship between Anju Goel 2025.07.10 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP-9368-20 Other connecte 2025 and nnected matters -5- respondents N ents No.2 to 4 and the petitioner(s) (s)-workmen and the services of petitioners wit rs with respondent have come to an en o an end which is perfectly valid as the petitioner w ioner was appointed to work only for a ly for a specific period. 8. Learned counsel for the petitio petitioner(s)-workmen argues that even if, the ap the appointment was for a specific pe ific period but once, the work of a specific post e post existed, the services being rende rendered by petitioners could not have been term en terminated by the respondent and in and in case, the services were to be terminated, the ed, the retrenchment compensation w tion was required to be paid to the petitioners wh which was not paid, hence, the te the termination of petitioners is a violation of se of section 25 F of the 1947 Act. 9. Learned counsel for the petiti petitioner(s) further argues that initially the c the claim against respondent No.5 No.5 was allowed by the Labour Court whereas hereas, now the same claim against re inst respondents No.2 to 4 has been rejected hence hence, contradictory awards have b have been passed by the Labour Court. Hence Hence, it is the prayer of petitioner itioners that the impugned awards which have be ave been challenged in view of the pr the present bunch of petitions may kindly be set a e set aside. 10. Learned counsel appearing on g on behalf of respondent No.5 submits that t that the petitioners were selected to to work for a specific time in anticipation of tion of regular appointment by the Ad the Administrative Department and when the Ad he Administrative Department even eventually received the regular employees, the es, the services of the petitioners were s were returned to respondent No.5 and the service service of the petitioners came to an en o an end. Anju Goel 2025.07.10 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP-9368-20 Other connecte 2025 and nnected matters -6- 11. Learned counsel for the respon respondent further submitted that Section 25-F w F will not applicable in the presen present case as, the appointment of petitioners wa was on the outsourcing basis kee is keeping in view the requisition sought by the by the Administrative Department w ent which was only valid for a particular per r period from 18.07.2017 to 17.10 17.10.2011 which is clear from Annexure P- -1 attached by the petitioner. Hen r. Hence, the case of the petitioner is covered by ed by Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Indus Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and therefore, will will not amount to retrenchment hment and thus, no retrenchment compensation sation was required to be paid to petitio petitioners. 12. Learned counsel appearing on be on behalf of the State argues that once the requi requisition was given by Administrati nistrative Department for supplying the work force k force till the time the regular selec r selected employees are recruited, and when the the regularly selected employees w ees were recruited, the services of the petitioners tioners were no longer required by the by the Administrative Department and they were were sent back to the outsourcing ag ing agency and therefore, no claim can be made ag de against respondents No. 2 to 4. 13. I have heard learned counsel for t el for the petitioners and have gone through the ca tance. the case files with his able assistance. 14. Learned counsel for the petition etitioner submits that appointment order or termi termination order was issued in favo in favour of the petitioners. Once, there is no app no appointment order brought on recor n record by the petitioners and there is no order rder of termination, thus, as per the er the law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Cour e Court of India, unless there is a spec a specific appointment order issued in writing in in favour of the petitioners or the or there is documentary evidence Anju Goel 2025.07.10 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP-9368-20 Other connecte 2025 and nnected matters -7- substantiating iating the same, such as salary slip, n , no master and servant relation can be claimed laimed. 15. As per the judgment of the Hon’b Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave eave Petition (civil) No. 19648 o 48 of 2023 titled as The Joint Secretary, Ce , Central Board of Secondary Edu Education and another vs. Raj Kumar Misha ishara and others, decided on 17.03 7.03.2025 merely working under the supervision rvision and control of the department rtment does not mean there exists a master and ser nd servant relationship between the d n the department and an employee. The relevant p vant paragraph No. 6 is as under:- “6. Having considered the fact facts and circumstances of the case(s) and submissions of learne arned counsel for the parties, we find 3 substance in the contentio fi ntions of learned counsel for the appellants. The issue whether th er the private respondents were employees of the appellants, i ts, is the crux of the matter. Whatever material has been pla placed and even the best point which was argued by the learn learned Senior Counsel for the private respondents before this C p is Court was that since there was supervisory and jurisdictional nal control over the private respondents by the appellants, ip ts, ipso facto, they would become employees of the appellants is no s noted only to be rejected. ” 16. It is the conceded position that th that there is no appointment order issued by any y any of the authorities in favour of our of the petitioners. Keeping in view the said s said settled principle of law reproduc produced hereinabove and facts and evidence brou brought on record, it cannot be acc accepted that the petitioners are the employees oyees of respondents No.2 to 5 or not ing. or not so as to record such finding. 17. Further, even if it is assumed that ed that the petitioners were selected Anju Goel 2025.07.10 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP-9368-20 Other connecte 2025 and nnected matters -8- by contractor actor-respondent No.5 to be posted in in service with respondents No. 2 to 4, the sam the same was done only for the time time directly recruited employees joined in the n the service. Therefore, upon fillin n filling up of the posts by direct recruitee the se the services of the petitioners were se ere sent back by respondents No.2 to 4 to respon respondent No.5. Hence, it cannot b nnot be said that the work for the posts, which th hich the petitioners were discharging arging remain existing after joining of the directly rectly recruited regular employees. 18. Further, the appointment of the f the petitioner was a tenured one which is clear clear from the requisition sent by th by the Administrative Department to respondent ndent No.5 which is the outsourcing a cing agency. A bare perusal of the same would s ould show that the requisition was was made for a period of three months startin starting from 18.07.2011 till 17.10.20 .10.2011. Once, there is a specific appointment for a specific period of time, and , and there is no order terminating the service, the , the same has to be seen whether it ther it will amount to retrenchment or not. 19. Section 2 (oo) (bb) of 1947 Act is Act is as under : “2 (oo) “retrenchment” m t” means the termination by the employer of the service of ce of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, ion, but does not include- [(bb) termination of the s he service of the workman as a result of the non- renewal o wal of the contract of employment between the employer and and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such cont contract being terminated under the stipulation in that beha ehalf contained therein; or]” Anju Goel 2025.07.10 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP-9368-20 Other connecte 2025 and nnected matters -9- 20. A bare perusal of the above wou would show that where there is a tenured appoin appointment in favour of the petitione titioners and the appointment come to an end due d due to non-extension of the same, t ame, therefore, the same cannot be treated as retre as retrenchment. Hence, in the case o case of the petitioners, the tenured appointment c ent came to an end and hence, the ce, the same cannot be treated as retrenchment ment so as to grant retrenchment comp t compensation to the petitioner(s)- workmen. In t . In the present case, no retrenchmen chment compensation was required to be given to to the petitioner(s)-workmen hen hence, it cannot be said that the termination of ion of the services of the petitioners w s were in violation of 1947 Act. 21. Keeping in view the totality of of facts and circumstances and law laid by Su by Supreme Court, as the petitioner h oner has not been able to prove that the award pas rd passed by the Labour Court is p rt is perverse to the facts or the evidence or th e or the 1947 Act, hence, no ground is ound is made out to interfere in the same and the p ssed. the present petitions are dismissed. 22. 23. Pending application (s), if any, any, shall also stand disposed of. A photocopy of this order be r be placed on the files of other connected case d cases. 07.07. 2025 anju (HARS ARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI ) JUDGE oned Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Yes/No Yes/No Anju Goel 2025.07.10 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh