148 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 27.10.2025

1. LPA-2379-2025 (O&M)

Sarabjeet ...Appellant Vs.

Presiding Officer and others ...Respondents

2. LPA-2397-2025 (O&M)

Ashok Kumar ...Appellant Vs.

Presiding Officer and others ...Respondents

3. LPA-2398-2025 (O&M)

Yograj Singh ...Appellant Vs.

Presiding Officer and others ...Respondents

4. LPA-2448-2025 (O&M)

Joginder Kumar ...Appellant Vs.

Presiding Officer and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present: Mr. G.S.Goria, Advocate and Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the appellant(s).

Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, Addl.A.G.Haryana.

***

DEEPAK MANCHANDA , J .

By this common order, the aforementioned four Letters Patent Appeals, i.e., LPA-2379-2025, LPA-2397-2025, LPA-2398-2025 and LPA- 2448-2025, are being disposed of together. All four intra-court appeals involve similar questions of law; therefore, the facts of LPA No. 2379-2025 are being considered for adjudication of all these appeals.

2. Through this intra-court appeal, the appellant has challenged the impugned judgment dated 24.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition(s) preferred by the appellants were dismissed, and the award dated 11.03.2014 passed by the Labour Court was upheld against the appellant.

3. The brief facts emerging from the pleadings are that the appellant was appointed on 10.08.2004 as Beldar-cum-Mali in the Public Health Division, Fatehabad. On 01.10.2006, his services were terminated without any notice, reason, or retrenchment compensation. Dissatisfied by the same, the appellant sent a demand notice dated 07.11.2011 under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, alleging illegal termination. Vide award dated 11.03.2014, the Labour Court rejected the appellant’s claim, holding that there was no employer-employee relationship. The said award was challenged through CWP No. 7143-2022, which was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 24.04.2025 on the ground that the appellant had failed to establish a master-servant relationship between himself and the respondent-department, even before the Labour Court. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the appellant has filed the present intra-court appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge erred in ignoring the material evidence and wrongly affirmed the award passed by the Labour Court. It is contended that the termination was without notice or compensation and in violation of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant had worked continuously for 2 years and 1 month, satisfying the 240 days requirement under Section 25-B of the Act. He argues that the appellant worked under the direct supervision of the department, hence constructive employment existed, therefore termination was arbitrary and discriminatory.

5. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, submits that the appellant was never directly employed by the department but was engaged through a licensed contractor. Since no employer-employee relationship existed, the Labour Court rightly rejected the claim in its award dated 11.03.2014. He further submitted that the Labour Court recorded a finding of fact that there was no direct employment, and such finding cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction. It is also submitted that all contractors had valid licences and payments were made by them directly to the appellants and the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is well-reasoned and does not warrant any interference, as both the Labour Court and the Single Judge have recorded concurrent findings of fact.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. A perusal of the pleadings shows that the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition vide judgment dated 24.04.2025 on the ground that the appellant failed to establish the master-servant relat