IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on :18.03.2025 HITESH KUMAR . .Petitioner Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS . . . Respondents

290 CWP-10124-2024 (O&M)

DURGA SINGH VERMA . .Petitioner Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS . . . Respondents

291. CWP-10142-2024 (O&M)

AJAY SHARMA . .Petitioner Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS . . . Respondents

291.1 CWP-19396-2024 (O&M)

PRASIDH KUMAR . .Petitioner Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS . . . Respondents SURENDER KUMAR GAUTAM . .Petitioners Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS . . . Respondents

292 CWP-10335-2024 (O&M)

BABU RAM DHIMAN . .Petitioner Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI PRESENT: Mr. Vivek Dahiya, Advocate and Mr.Rahul Gautam, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-10142-2024.

Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP-19396 of 2024 and CWP No. 19605 of 2024.

Mr. Karanvir Singh, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3 in CWP-19396 of 2024 and CWP No. 19605 of 2024 Mr. Maheshinder Singh Sidhu, Advocate Additional Standing Counsel U.T. Chandigarh and Mr. Varunveer Chauhan,Advocate Panel Counsel, U. T. Chandigarh for respondents No. 2 to 4 for U.T.Chandigarh in CWP-10107-2024, CWP NO. 10124 of 2024 and CWP NO. 10142 of 2024, CWP No. 10335 of 2024.

Mr. Piyush Khanna, Advocate for respondent No. 1 in CWP-10142 of 2024.

Mr. Rajat Khanna, Advocate for respondent No. 5 in CWP-10142-2024 and CWP-10107 of 2024, CWP-10124 of 2024 and CWP-10335 of 2024.

Mr. TPS Chawla, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)

(cid:1)(cid:2) (cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:11)(cid:13)(cid:5)(cid:11)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:14)(cid:17)(cid:5)(cid:18)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:16)(cid:6)(cid:5)(cid:11)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:20)(cid:14)(cid:8)(cid:6)(cid:5)(cid:21)(cid:16)(cid:6)(cid:8)(cid:6)(cid:8)(cid:11)(cid:13)(cid:9)(cid:17)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:16)(cid:5)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:6)(cid:18)(cid:8)(cid:22)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:11)(cid:19) (cid:20)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:18)(cid:23)(cid:16)(cid:5)(cid:24)(cid:16)(cid:16)(cid:13)(cid:5)(cid:5)ti(cid:8)(cid:23)(cid:16)(cid:13)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:13)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:16)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:16)(cid:18)(cid:15)(cid:8)(cid:13)ti(cid:17)(cid:5)(cid:18)(cid:14)(cid:16)(cid:5)(cid:24)(cid:16)(cid:8)(cid:13)ti(cid:5)(cid:15)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:21)(cid:11)(cid:9)(cid:16)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:11)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:18)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:24)(cid:11)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:16)

(cid:21)(cid:16)(cid:6)(cid:8)(cid:6)(cid:8)(cid:11)(cid:13)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:13)(cid:23)(cid:11)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:16)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:16)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:18)(cid:12)(cid:16)(cid:5)(cid:26)(cid:27)(cid:16)(cid:9)(cid:6)(cid:8)(cid:11)(cid:13)(cid:5)(cid:11)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:22)(cid:18)(cid:20)(cid:5)(cid:11)(cid:13)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:8)(cid:12)(cid:8)(cid:22)(cid:18)(cid:14)(cid:5)(cid:19)(cid:18)(cid:10)(cid:6)(cid:9)(cid:2)

2. In the present bunch of petitions, the grievance being raised by the petitioners is that their claim for adjudication of the demand notice dated 04.12.2023 (Annexure P-4) by Labour Court has been rejected by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Chandigarh vide impugned order dated 22.02.2024 (Annexure P-6) with the finding that the petitioners are not “workman” and advise has been given to the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum for the redressal of their dispute/grievance.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the impugned order has been passed on the ground that the designation of the petitioners was Deputy Manager hence, the applicants who were in charge of the raw material section in managerial capacity i.e. as a Deputy Manager, cannot be treated as a “workman”, is incorrect as the question whether the petitioners are “workman” or not, it is a mater of fact and evidence which will come before the labour Court, hence, the impugned or