IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 15.01.2025 Pronounced on : 28.01.2025 Shamsher Singh ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. T.S. Dhull, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Tapan Kumar, DAG Haryana.

*****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J.

1. Prayer in the present petition is for issuance of a writ of Certiorari for quashing the decision of the respondents to pay salary to the petitioner through a service provider despite the petitioner being an employee of the respondent-department. Further prayer is to direct the respondents to grant minimum regular pay scale meant for the post of Patwari along with dearness allowance as well as arrears of salary from the initial date of appointment at the market rate of interest to the petitioner.

2. Briefly, the facts claimed by the petitioner are that he claims to be appointed by the respondents as a Canal Patwari on contractual basis in the year 2008. However, on 30.11.2009, his services were terminated by the respondents without giving any notice and without assigning any reasons.

3. The petitioner challenged the order of his termination before the Labour Court, Rohtak and the said reference was allowed vide award dated

13.11.2014 wherein the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated on his previous post with continuity of service and 50% backwages from the date of demand notice i.e. 18.08.2010. Respondent-department challenged the said award before this Court by filing CWP No. 17009 of 2015. Vide order dated 08.11.2016, this Court dismissed the petition and upheld the award passed by Labour Court, Rohtak. The relevant part of the order is extracted hereunder:

“6.) Perusal of the evidence adduced by the then Executive Engineer, Sh. Viney Grover, it is evident that he has examined agreement entered into with M/s Friends Corporate Service Pvt. Ltd. wherein the licence has been given for supplying labourers and not Canal Patwaris so as to contend that the respondent-workman was appointed through M/s Friends Corporate Service Pvt. Ltd. Further it is evident from Roznamcha/Attendance Register Exhibit W-8 and W-2 which reveals that the respondent-workman was working with the petitioner from 30.4.2004 to 30.11.2009. Therefore, it is evident that there is a relationship of employee and employer among the petitioner and the respondent-workman. Hence, there is no infirmity in the Labour Court award. Insofar as grant of 50% back wages is concerned. Even the respondent-workman was admitted to have gainfully employed, the Labour Court has granted only 50% back wages. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the award passed by the Labour Court dated 13.11.2014. No interference is called for.

7.) Petition stands dismissed.”

4. Aggrieved thereof, the respondent-department preferred LPA No. 294 of 2017 and the same was allowed vide order dated 27.02.2017 and the matter was remanded to the Labour Court, Rohtak for deciding the case afresh in accordance with law. The relevant part of the order is extracted hereunder:

“5. Faced with this, learned counsel for respondent No.2 fairly states that the matter may be remitted to Labour Court for its fresh adjudication so as to give specific findings as to whether; (i) respondent no.2 was engaged in the year 2004 directly and not through Service Provider?, if so, (ii) what was the mode of engagement of respondent No.2?; (iii) whether respondent No.2 was engaged in the year 2004 or in the year 2008?; (iv) since when the Service Provider was hired by the department to provide employment?; (v) for how much period the agreement between the Executive Engineer and the Service Provider continued to operate?

6. With a view to decide the above formulated questions effectively, we allow the appeal; set-aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the Award dated 13.11.2014 and remit the matter to the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Rohtak with a direction to re-decid