IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (111+258) CM-3673-CWP-2025 in/and CWP-6664-2018 (O&M)

Date of Decision : 17.03.2025 Municipal Committee, Cheeka and another ...Petitioners Versus District & Sessions Judge, Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present: Mr. G.S. Aulakh, Advocate for Mr. Hitesh Malik, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Jasbir Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

***

Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the Award dated 31.10.2017 (Annexure P-14) by which, respondent No. 2-Workman has been reinstated in service along with continuity and 50% back wages.

2. The counsel for respondent No. 2-Workman claims that respondent No. 2-workman was appointed as a Driver and had worked with the petitioner for a period of six years and that his services were wrongly terminated by the petitioner in the year 2010. After a period of six years of the termination, the claim was raised before the Labour Court by respondent No. 2-workman with regard to the termination of his service by impleading the petitioner as a respondent in the proceeding before the Labour Court and stated therein that the respondent No. 2-Workman was indeed the employee of the petitioner and his services were wrongly terminated by the petitioner.

3. The petitioner appeared before the Labour Court as a respondent and stated therein that there was no existing master and servant relationship between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 so as to treat respondent No. 2 as employee of the petitioner and that respondent No. 2-workman was appointed with the petitioner through an outsourcing agency and a private Contractor. Keeping in view the fact that the appointments with the petitioner were being made through outsourcing agency only and, therefore, as there exists no master and servant relationship between the petitioner and respondent No. 2-workman, the claim of respondent No. 2-Workman qua his termination should have been dismissed. Whereas, the said issue has been decided by the Labour Court while passing the impugned Award dated 31.10.2017 (Annexure P-14) and the claim of the respondent No. 2- Workman qua his termination has been allowed. As per the findings of the impugned Award, the respondent No. 2-Workman has been treated as the employee of the petitioner and not that of the Contractor and thus, has been granted the benefit of reinstatement along with continuity in service and 50%

back wages, which Award is under challenge in the present petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that once, it is clear that the respondent No. 2-Workman was appointed as a Driver with the petitioner through an outsourcing agency, therefore, there exists no master and servant relationship between the petitioner and the Workman, hence, the grant of benefit of reinstatement with continuity in service with the petitioner along with 50% back wages by the Labour Court, is incorrect and the Award of the Labour Court dated 31.10.2017 (Annexure P-14) is liable to be set-

aside on this ground alone.

5. Upon notice of motion, the counsel for respondent No. 2- Workman has appeared and has supported the impugned Award. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2-Workman does not dispute the fact that the respondent No. 2-Workman was working with the petitioner through an outsourcing agency but rather submits that as, the Contractor was not eligible to get the contract of employment with the petitioner to provide them with Labour force as the Contractor did not have any valid License to do the same, therefore, the Principal Employer has been rightly treated as the Employer of respondent No. 2-workman in the facts and circumstances of the present case hence, the benefit of reinstatement along with continuity in service and 50% back wages has been granted by the Labour Court vide its impugned order, which should be upheld.

6. I have hear