Bipin Chander Negi, Judge

By way of the present petition, a challenge has been laid to the judgment dated 11.12.2024 in CWP No.5947 of 2024, titled Registrar, Maharishi Markandeshwar Medical College and Hospital (MMU) Vs. Dinesh Kumar, passed by the learned Single Judge, affirming the award passed by the HP Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla, dated 19.01.2024.

2. In the case at hand, vide notification dated 22.06.2018, a Reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter for the purpose of brevity referred as “Act”) qua the termination of service of the present respondent by the appellant was received by the H.P. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla. The reference was with respect to the legality of the aforesaid termination and the relief to which either party was entitled.

3. The respondent herein had claimed to have commenced his service career with the appellant from July 2014. As per the respondent, his oral illegal termination had happened on 08.04.2017. In the claim petition, it had been averred by the respondent that he had proceeded on leave on 18.01.2017, as he had fallen seriously ill. When he reported back on duty on 08.04.2017, he was not allowed to join his services and his services were terminated without notice, retrenchment compensation, necessary compliance of Section 25-F of the Act. Besides the aforesaid, in the claim petition, violations of Sections 25-G and 25-H were also raised.

4. In the response filed by the appellant before the Industrial Tribunal, preliminary objections with respect to maintainability, the respondent being not a workman, non-joinder of necessary party, the appellant not being an industry were raised. On merits, it was alleged that respondent was an outsourced contractual employee, engaged through a contractor. Further, it was averred in the reply filed by the appellant that the respondent had been missing from duty since 18.01.2017 without any intimation or leave. Hence, there arose no occasion for termination of his service on 08.04.2017. In the rejoinder filed, contents of the claim petition were being reiterated. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, following issues were framed:-

1. Whether the termination of the petitioner w.ef. 08.04.2017 is violative of the provisions of Section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as alleged? If so, what relief the petitioner is entitled to? OPP....

2. Whether the claim is not maintainable as alleged, if so, its effects thereto? OPR…

3. Whether the petitioner is not a workman under the provisions of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as alleged, if so, its effect thereto? OPR….

4. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party as alleged, if so, its effect thereto? OPR...

5. Whether the claim is not maintainable as the respondents college does not fall under the provisions of industry as defined in the Act, as alleged, if so, its effect thereto? OPR...

6. Relief.

5. Post framing of issues, evidence on behalf of both the parties were led. The respondent had appeared as the sole witness in support of the contentions being raised in the claim petition and similarly one Shri Ajay Singhal, representative of the appellant, had appeared as the sole witness on behalf of the appellant.

6. On a consideration of the relevant case law, the Labour Court held the respondent to be a “Workman” in terms of Section 2(s) of the Act and the appellant was held to be an “Industry” in terms of the Act.

7. Based on the pleadings i.e. claim petition and the reply filed thereto, it is evident that the respondent had worked continuously from July 2014 till 18.1.2017. In order to establish that the respondent was not an employee of the appellant and had been engaged by a contractor, the appellant had placed on record appointment letter Exhibit RW1-B-identity card, Exhibit RW1/C and documents pertaining to the release of salary for two months (marked RX-1 and RX-2). The aforesaid