IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 11.12.2025 Vikas ….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 him, 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, his 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, he was appointed through a contractor, whereas, the petitioner had worked till 06.08.2015. However, the relevant record 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. This Court has heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, and perused the record.

4. 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.

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

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

7. 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) and Ex.W2 (subscribers ledger 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 him.

8. The principal submission, as raised before this Court, was that the record for the relevant period was not produced, and thus, presumption has to be drawn against the Management and in favour of the petitioner.

9. 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 his EPF Account from 01.04.2012 to 15.07.2013 only. Initial onus was upon the petitioner to prove his case by getting the relevant record, if any, summoned from the Department of EPFO, which, he failed to discharge. Further, the petitioner could not bring on record any evidence, much less cogent, to establish that, either he was recruited by the Municipal Corporation, Rohtak, directly, or was being paid wages by it. Rather, the documentary evidence available on record indicates that he was working with the firm, i.e. A One INFABIG Pvt. Ltd., which had deployed him with the Municipal Corporation, Rohtak. Thus, the argument carries no weight, and is liable to be rejected.

10. So far as the plea that record for