Dismissed¶¶28

Divisional Forest Officer v. Smt. Bobby and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC13 May 2025CWP/1690/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Reinstatement with continuity; 50% back wages; master and servant relationship; Village Forest Committee appointment; outsourcing agency; contractor; Section 25-F Industrial Disputes Act 1947; 240 days completed before termination; two decades of service; arbitrary termination; perversity as ground for interference with Labour Court award; no officer proved outsourcing; Punjab and Haryana High Court; Harsimran Singh Sethi J.; CWP No. 1690 of 2020 (O&M); Divisional Forest Officer v. Smt. Bobby; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner-department failed to prove that respondent No. 1-workman was working through a contractor or outsourcing agency; none of the departmental officers examined could prove it, though the averment was made. ¶¶22

Divisional Forest Officer Vs Smt. Bobby and Another — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No. 1-workman was appointed through the Village Forest Committee / engaged through a contractor or outsourcing agency, so that there was no master and servant relationship between her and the petitioner-department. +2 more

¶¶16

Court's answer

¶¶22

Ratio / Principle

In the absence of evidence of engagement through any agency, and it being a conceded position that respondent No. 1-workman worked for two decades with the petitioner-department and completed 240 days prior to termination, the Labour Court's finding of master and servant relationship cannot be treated as perverse.

¶¶23

Key takeaways

The finding that termination of respondent No. 1-workman's services in violation of Section 25-F of the 1947 Act cannot be treated to be perverse.ratio¶¶23
A Labour Court Award can be interfered with by this Court only if it is proved to be perverse qua the facts or the evidence brought on record.ratio¶¶27
The petitioner-department having failed to prove the impugned Award to be perverse, no ground was made out for interference and the petition was liable to be dismissed.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CWP No. 1690 of 2020 (O&M) — Divisional Forest Officer v. Smt. Bobby (Punjab & Haryana High Court, 13.05.2025, Harsimran Singh Sethi J., oral). Petition by the Divisional Forest Officer challenging Labour Court Award dated 05.02.2019 (Annexure P-5) reinstating respondent No. 1-workman in service with continuity and 50% back wages. Held: (i) the petitioner-department failed to prove that the workman was appointed through the Village Forest Committee or was working through a contractor or outsourcing agency — none of the officers examined could prove it; (ii) it being a conceded position that she had worked for two decades with the department and completed 240 days prior to termination, the Labour Court's findings of master and servant relationship and of termination in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 cannot be treated as perverse; (iii) a Labour Court Award is open to interference only if proved perverse qua the facts or evidence on record. Petition dismissed; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

¶1

CWP No. 1690 of 2020 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

(231) CWP No. 1690 of 2020 (O&M) Date of Decision : 13.05.2025

¶5

Divisional Forest Officer

¶6

...Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Smt. Bobby and another

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

¶11

Present: Mr. Saurabh Girdhar, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.

¶12

Mr. Gurmandeep Singh Sullar, Advocate with Mr. Devaki Anand Sullar, Advocate and Mr. Harish Kumar, Advocate for respondent No. 1.

¶13

¶14

Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)

¶15

In the present petition, the challenge is to the Award dated 05.02.2019 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Labour Court by which the employee working has been reinstated in service with continuity and 50% back wages.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No. 1-workman was appointed through Village Forest Committee, hence there was no master and servant relationship between the respondent No. 1- workman and the department of the petitioner, which fact has been ignored by the Labour Court while holding that the respondent No. 1-workman was entitled for reinstatement with continuity in serevice and 50% back wages.

¶17

Learned counsel for respondent No. 1-workman submits that the Officers of the department who deposed before the Labour Court, did not

¶18

Kanchan 2025.05.14 15:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶19

CWP No. 1690 of 2020 (O&M) 2

¶20

produce any record that the respondent No. 1-workman was working through Village Forest Committee which is clear from the statement Annexure P-3 as well as the findings which have been recorded by the Labour Court in paragraph 19 of the Award dated 05.02.2019 (Annexure P-5) hence, the finding has been recorded that the respondent No. 1-workman was working for a period of more than two decades with the petitioner’s-department but her services were terminated in an arbitrary manner in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1947 Act’).

¶21

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

¶22

The petitioner-department has not been able to prove that respondent No. 1-workman was working through the outsourcing agency. Though, the averment was made but the same was not proved. None of the Officers of the department who were examined, could prove that the respondent No. 1-workman was working through the Contractor or the outsourcing agency.

¶23

In the absence of any such material evidence brought on record coupled with the fact that it is a conceded position that the respondent No. 1- workman has worked for two decades with the petitioner-department and had completed 240 days prior to the termination of her services, the findings which have been recorded by the Labour Court that there is a master and servant relationship and while terminating the services of the respondent No. 1-workman under Section 25-F of 1947 Act has been violated, cannot be treated to be perverse.

¶24

Kanchan 2025.05.14 15:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶25

CWP No. 1690 of 2020 (O&M)

¶26

¶27

Further, the Award dated 05.02.2019 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Labour Court can only be interfered with in case, the same is proved to be perverse qua the facts or the evidence brought on record. As the petitioner is department has failed to prove the aforementioned Award to be perverse, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the present petition.

¶28

8. Dismissed.

¶29