District Food and Supply Controller Vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal and Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

244-6

Decided on : 22.05.2025

1. CWP-170-2024 (O&M) DISTRICT FOOD AND SUPPLY CONTROLLER Versus	..PETITIONER
PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ...R	AND ANOTHER ESPONDENTS
2. CWP-190-2024 (O&M)
DISTRICT FOOD AND SUPPLY CONTROLLER Versus	..PETITIONER
PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ...R 3. CWP-209 -2024 (O&M) DISTRICT FOOD AND SUPPLY CONTROLLER Versus PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ...R 4. CWP-218-2024 (O&M) DISTRICT FOOD AND SUPPLY CONTROLLER Versus	AND ANOTHER ESPONDENTS ..PETITIONER AND ANOTHER ESPONDENTS ..PETITIONER
PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL	AND ANOTHER
...R	ESPONDENTS
5. CWP-2312-2024 (O&M)
DISTRICT FOOD AND SUPPLY CONTROLLER Versus	..PETITIONER
PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ...R 6. CWP-15285 -2024 (O&M)	AND ANOTHER ESPONDENTS
DISTRICT FOOD AND SUPPLY CONTROLLER

¶5

RIYA 2025.05.27 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶6

CWP-170-2024 (O&M) and connected matters

-2-

..PETITIONER

Versus

PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER

¶11

...RESPONDENTS

¶12

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

¶13

PRESENT: Mr. Himanshu Raj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.

¶14

Mr. Dharamveer Phour, Advocate for respondent No. 2 in CWP-190-2024, CWP-218-2024 and CWP-15285-2024.

¶15

Mr. Aniket Sindhar, Advocate for respondent No. 2 in CWP-170-2024, CWP-209-2024 and CWP-2312-2024.

¶16

¶17

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)

¶18

By this common order, all the above mentioned writ petitions are being disposed of as all the writ petitions involve the same question of law on similar facts.

¶19

In the present bunch of petitions, the challenge is to the impugned award dated 31.08.2022 (Annexure P-3 in CWP-170-2024), by which, the termination of the services of the respondents-workman has been found to be illegal as unfair labour practice had been adopted by the petitioner by not allowing the workman to complete 240 days in a calendar year by re-appointing him in a few days of interval so as to frustrate his right to claim certain benefits under 1947 Act under which completion of 240 days in a clander year is a condition requisite to claim such benefits. Accordingly, the respondent-workman was directed to be reinstated in service with

¶20

RIYA 2025.05.27 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

CWP-170-2024 (O&M) and connected matters

¶22

-3-

¶23

continuity alongwith 50 % back wages w.e.f. 20.05.2019 i.e. date of the filing of the claim statement.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner-department submits that rather than adjudicating upon the claim of the petitioner-department as to whether there existed any master and servant relationship between the respondent workman and petitioner-department, impugned award has been passed bythe labour Court only on the ground that the maligned efforts were made by the petitioner to not to allow the respondent-workman to complete 240 days in a calendar year prior to the date of termination of the services of the respondent-workman.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner-department further submits that all the respondent-workman were working through the contractor, which issue has not been at all dealt by the labour Court especially when , no appointment letter issued by petitioner in favour of workman was brought on record by the workman to show that there existed a direct master and servant relationship between the both so as to claim the benefit of reinstatement in service alongwith 50 % back wages by way of filing under claim petition.

¶26

Learned counsel for the respondent(s)-workman, on the other hand submits that once the impugned award has been passed holding that the termination of the services of the respondent-workman was bad and by practicing unfair labour practice, the same kindly be upheld.

¶27

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

¶28

It may be seen that from the day one, the master and servant relationship between the respondent-workman and petitioner-department is

¶29

RIYA 2025.05.27 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

CWP-170-2024 (O&M) and connected matters

¶31

-4-

¶32

being disputed. The respondent-workman has to prove that they were the employee of the petitioner-department before any direction is given by the labour Court to reinstate the respondents-workman in service with the petitioner-department.

¶33

A bare perusal of the impugned award would show that such issue though arises on the basis of the pleadings which has been noticed, but the same has not been decided by the labour Court.

¶34

As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave Petition (civil) No. 19648 of 2023 titled as The Joint Secretary, Central Board of Secondary Education and another vs. Raj Kumar Mishara and others, decided on 17.03.2025 merely working under the supervision and control of the department does not mean there exists a master and servant relationship between the department and an employee.

¶35

The relevant paragraph No. 6 is as under:-

¶36

“6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case(s) and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, we find 3 substance in the contentions of learned counsel for the appellants. The issue whether the private respondents were employees of the appellants, is the crux of the matter. Whatever material has been placed and even the best point which was argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the private respondents before this Court was that since there was supervisory and jurisdictional control over the private respondents by the appellants, ipso facto, they would become employees of

¶37

RIYA 2025.05.27 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶38

CWP-170-2024 (O&M) and connected matters

¶39

-5-

¶40

the appellants is noted only to be rejected. ”

¶41

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and as the main issue whether there exists a master and servant relationship between the petitioner-department and respondents-workman has not been decided by the Labour Court, the impugned award dated 31.08.2022 (Annexure P-3 in CWP-170-2024) passed by the labour Court is set-aside and the cases are remanded back to the labour Court to decide upon the said issue afresh that whether the master and servant relationship between the petitioner-department and respondent-workman exists or not.

¶42

Parties are directed to appear before the labour Court on

¶43

03.07.2025.

¶44

The present petition is disposed of in above terms.

¶45

Pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, stands disposed of.

¶46

12.. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected

¶47

case.

¶48

(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE

¶49

22.05.2025 Riya Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes /No Whether Reportable: Yes /No

¶50

RIYA 2025.05.27 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

District Food and Supply Controller v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

District Food and Supply Controller v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Geminy Industrial Corporation Vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal Ludhiana and Another

Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Patiala Vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court U.T., Ch

Sham Lal Vs the Fazilka Coop Sugar Mills

District Food and Supply Controller Vs Presiding Officer Industrail Tribunal and Another

District Food and Supply Controller Vs Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal and Another

District Food and Supply Controller Vs Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal and Another