JUDGMENT

G.S. Sandhawalia, J.

Consideration in the present Letters Patent Appeal, filed by the respondent No.2-writ petitioner, is to the order dated 06.08.2015 of the Learned Single Judge passed in CWP-3643-2013 titled Gurnek Singh v. The Presiding officer, Industrial Trinunal , Bhatinda & another, wherein the writ petition was allowed and the award of the Labour Court dated 15.02.2012 was set aside whereby the reference has been declined. Accordingly, the workman was held entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity of the same and 50% back-wages from the date of the receipt of the demand notice.

2. The reasoning on which the writ petition was allowed is that the workman had been transferred to the appellant-Society and there was an order of the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society dated 26.02.1997 (Annexure P-2) approving the resolution of transfer which had been sent for approval. It was further held that the Management had only produced the audit report pertaining to 1996-97 upto 31.03.1997 and it is the case of the workman that he had been in employment with respondent No.2- Management since 1991 and reliance had wrongly not been placed upon the receipt of Rs.5000/- dated 09.01.1994 which had been taken by the employer. Accordingly, it was held that the receipt would show the relationship of employer-employee and accordingly, a finding was recorded that the provisions of Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has not been complied with and no compensation had been paid to the workman. The plea that the workman had not joined the employer was held to be meaningless in view of the categorical averment in the claim petition and the fact that he remained unemployed after 1997 and the Management was held not to have led any evidence to the contrary.

3. A perusal of the paper-book would go on to show that the claim of the workman as per his claim statement was that he had worked as Salesman from 25.07.1981 to 26.02.1997 and his service had been illegally terminated on 26.02.1997 without any notice, show cause notice, enquiry or compensation. He was drawing Rs.2506/- per day/month at the time of termination from service and it was claimed that junior persons and newly appointed persons were working. It is pertinent to mention that neither there was any claim that he was initially working with Bandi Wala Cooperative Agriculture Service Society in his claim petition and that he had been transferred.

4. Apparently, at the initial stage, an ex-parte award was passed on 21.01.2010 against the Management which had then filed CWP-6936- 2010 challenging the same which was allowed by this Court on 22.07.2011 and the matter was remanded for fresh decision.

5. The specific averment of the appellant was that he was never employed by them and that being duly constituted body under the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, they were performing their business and maintaining the attendance register of its employees. Proceeding books for passing/transacting the resolutions were duly incorporated in the proceedings book with the consent and authority of the elected body which was checked after every 6 months by the Inspector, Cooperative. Department annual audits were being done and there was no resolution passed for the appointment of the said workman and neither there was any relationship of employer and employee. It was alleged that the resolution which was placed in the file was forged and fabricated and had no authenticity and the said reference was liable to be dismissed as it was claimed to be not maintainable as there was no relationship of employer and employee and therefore, no question of dismissal, discharge or retrenchment arose. I