232 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-26543-2015 Date of Decision : 05.02.2026 DEVENDER SINGH BHATTI .....Petitioner VERSUS PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT-II AND ORS .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present : Ms. Meenakshi Thakur, Advocate for Mr. Raja Agnihotri, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Pawan Kumar Mutneja, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Viranjeet Singh Mahal, Advocate and Ms. Suverna Mutneja, Advocate, for respondent no.2.

Ms. Harmanjot Kaur, Advocate for Ms. Mridula Seth, Advocate, for respondent no.3.

KULDEEP TIWARI, J.(Oral)

1. Through the instant writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the workman has approached this Court, challenging the legality of the Award dated 26.02.2014 (Annexure P-1), wherethrough, the reference made under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was answered against him, by the learned Industrial Tribunal concerned (respondent no.1), holding that his services were not terminated by respondent no.2, and no employer-employee relationship existed between the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while drawing attention of this Court, towards the statement of one Ram Gopal, who stepped into the witness box as WW2, to substantiate that the petitioner-workman, continued to work with respondent no.2-contractor even after October, 1999, uptil 2007, and his services were erroneously transferred to respondent no.3. Except this piece of evidence, no other document has been relied upon/produced to establish the existence of an employer-

employee relationship between the petitioner and respondent no.2.

4. Succinctly stated, the petitioner was alleged to have been appointed on 03.04.1999, with respondent no.2, and was drawing a salary of Rs.2,814/- per month. Respondent no.2 was also deducting EPF and ESI, from his wages. However, no appointment letter etc. was ever issued to the petitioner. It is also alleged that respondent no.2 was indulged in unfair labour practice and on 07.05.2007, when the petitioner asked for his salary from respondent no.2, they forced him to sign several blank papers and forms. However, when the petitioner denied to do so, they refused to pay his salary, and on the very next day i.e. 08.05.2007, respondent no.2, terminated his services. The demand notice was duly refuted by respondents no.2 and 3, in their written statements. Respondent no.2 denied existence of employer-employee relationship, and therefore, they asserted that there is no question of violation of any provisions of Sections 25-G, 25-H, 25-F and 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On the other hand respondent no.3, asserted that the petitioner was appointed as Helper w.e.f. 19.02.2005, and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.2554/-, and they were depositing the EPF and ESI contribution under the relevant code number as detailed in the written statement. It was, categorically, admitted by respondent no.3, that the petitioner was working under their direct control and supervision, and the petitioner, was never denied entry at the gates of factory of respondent no.2, on dated 08.05.2007, rather, the petitioner absented himself from duty thereafter. It was also stated that, his unpaid salary for the month of March, 2007 and April, 2007, was still lying with them.

5. Before the learned Tribunal concerned, both the parties led their respective evidence, and upon appreciation thereof, the reference was answered against the petitioner vide an Award dated 26.02.2014, by observing that there existed no relationship of employer-employee between the petitioner and respondent no.2; and it was the petitioner, who was not ready to join his duty, which is admitted by him in his cross-

examination. The said Award is now under challenge before this Court.

6. This Court has heard the rival submissions, as made by learned counsel for the parties concerned, and has perused the entire case file.

7. Except for