IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 11.12.2025 Seema ….Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak and another ….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Sandeep Singal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

****

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner, through the instant writ petition, filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, has assailed the award dated 29.08.2023 (Annexure P-7), passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak, vide which, the reference has been answered against her, on the ground that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Sweeper in November, 2013, with the Municipal Corporation, Rohtak, but, her services were abruptly terminated on 06.08.2015, in gross infraction of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act’). While referring to the statement of account of the petitioner, appertaining to the Employees’ Provident Fund Organization (Annexure P-5), he submits that the record only for the period from 01.04.2012 to 15.07.2013, was made available, as per which, she was appointed through a contractor. However, the relevant evidence from the year 2013 onwards till 2015, was intentionally not brought on record, which could have proved the relationship of employer and employee between the parties.

3. In an attempt to substantiate his submissions, he invites attention of this Court towards the cross-examination of Mr. Sunder Singh, who was working with the respondent-Management as Chief Sanitary Inspector, and stepped into witness box as RW-1, to contend that he categorically deposed that control over the employees was being exercised by the Committee, which, in itself, is sufficient to establish the employer employee relationship. Not only that, he also conceded that temporary sweepers were deployed from 01.07.2014, who are still working with the respondent-department, which certainly indicates violation of Section 25-F of the Act. Therefore, the impugned award is liable to be set aside.

4. This Court has heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, and perused the record.

5. Before delving into the merits of the matter at hand, it is imperative to have a brief narration of the facts, as set out in the impugned award.

6. The petitioner was appointed as Sweeper in the month of November, 2013, and worked as such, till 06.08.2015, when her services were terminated, without any notice or opportunity of being heard. It was the pleaded case of the petitioner that she was working with the respondent-Municipal Corporation, Rohtak, on regular basis. Eventually, she filed a claim statement, which culminated into a reference.

7. The respondent-Management contested the matter by filing the written statement. To refute the claim putforth by the petitioner, the respondent Management adduced a specific evidence on record that the petitioner was, in fact, working with the firm, namely A One INFABIG Pvt. Ltd.

8. Upon consideration of the matter, and the evidence brought on record by the parties, specifically Ex.W1 (statement of account of the petitioner of EPFO), Ex.W2 (copy of passbook) and Ex.W3 (subscribers ledger cards of the EPF), the learned Industrial Tribunal reached a conclusion that the parties did not enjoy the relationship of employer and employee. Accordingly, vide impugned award, the reference has been answered against her.

9. The principal submission, as raised before this Court, was that no record from the year 2013 onwards till 2015 was produced, and thus, presumption has to be drawn against the Management and in favour of the petitioner.

10. A bare perusal of Annexure P-5, which was also exhibited as W1 before the learned Industrial Tribunal, reflects that the proportionate share was deposited by the contractor in her EPF Account fr