Ms Gretis India Private Limited Vs Punjab… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

Ms Gretis India Private Limited Vs Punjab… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 28.04.2026 of Respondent No.2-Appellate Authority, holding the petitioner-company exclusively liable for payment of gratuity to Respondent No.4, suffers from error warranting interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. +1 more

Court's answer

Learned counsel for the petitioner-company failed to demonstrate that the findings recorded by the learned Appellate Authority suffer from any patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

Ratio / Principle

Recording the basis of the impugned order, the Court noted the Appellate Authority's finding that no employer-employee relationship between respondent No.4 and respondent No.1-PUNSUP was proved; on the contrary, respondent No.4 was established to be an employee of M/s Gretis India Private Limited, drawing salary from it and having tendered his resignation to it; and that merely because respondent No.4 discharged his duties at the premises of respondent No.1 under the outsourcing arrangement would not, by itself, make respondent No.1 liable to pay gratuity.

Key takeaways

The findings recorded by the Appellate Authority are based upon the evidence available on record and cannot be said to be perverse merely because the petitioner-company seeks a different appreciation or interpretation of the same evidence.ratio¶22
No ground is made out for interference with the impugned order dated 28.04.2026 (Annexure P-10) passed by respondent No.2-Appellate Authority; consequently the writ petition is dismissed, and the pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, is also disposed of.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh (Kirti Singh, J., oral), 03.07.2026 — CWP-19640-2026 (O&M) filed by M/s Gretis India Private Limited under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, dismissed. Challenge was to the order dated 28.04.2026 (Annexure P-10) of Respondent No.2-Appellate Authority, which allowed the appeal of Respondent No.1-PUNSUP and held the petitioner-company exclusively liable for payment of gratuity to Respondent No.4. Background: Respondent No.4 was deployed with PUNSUP from 18.02.2013 to 31.12.2018 under a manpower-supply arrangement with the petitioner; the Controlling Authority, by order dated 07.10.2024, had held the petitioner and PUNSUP jointly and severally liable under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972; the petitioner's own appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay. The Appellate Authority found that no employer-employee relationship between respondent No.4 and PUNSUP stood proved; respondent No.4 was established to be the petitioner-company's employee (drawing salary from it and tendering resignation to it), and discharge of duties at PUNSUP's premises under an outsourcing arrangement would not, by itself, make PUNSUP liable to pay gratuity. Upholding that order, the Court held that the findings were based on the evidence on record, were neither perverse nor affected by patent illegality or jurisdictional error, and that a differing appreciation of the same evidence by the petitioner furnished no ground for writ interference. Pending civil miscellaneous application(s) disposed of.

CWP-19640-2026 (O&M) -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

(109) CWP-19640-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.07.2026

M/S GRETIS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

......Petiti o ner

Versu s

PUNJAB STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED (PUNSUP) AND OTHERS

.....Respond e nts

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH

Present: Mr. Radesh Kumar Kalra, A d vocate for the petitioner.

KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)

(1) The challenge in the instan t writ petition filed under Arti c les 226/227 of the Constitution of Indi a is to the order dated 28.04.2 0 26 (Ann e xure P-10) passed by Resp o ndent No.2-Appellate Autho r ity, wher e by the appeal filed by Respondent No.1Punjab State C ivil Supp l ies Corporation Limited (herein a fter referred to as ‘PUNSUP’) w as allow e d and the petitioner-compan y was held exclusively liable for paym e nt of gratuity to Respondent N o .4.

(2) Learned counsel for the petitioner-company submits t hat respo n dent No.4 was deployed wi t h Respondent No.1-PUNSUP on 18.02.2013 and continuously worked under the supervision, control a nd directions of respondent No.1 right u ptil 31.12.2018. At the time of his deplo y ment, gratuity and other stat u tory liabilities formed part of the SWARNJIT SINGH2026.07.06 18:11 “cost to the organization” and were specifically stipulated to be I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-19640-2026 (O&M) -2-

reimbursable by respondent No.1, w ith whom the petitioner comp a ny was i n a contract with regard to pro v iding manpower. Respondent N o.4 there a fter initiated proceedings under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1 9 72. The Controlling Authority vide o rder dated 07.10.2024 held the petiti o ner-company and Respondent N o.1 jointly and severally liable for paym e nt of gratuity. Despite reminde r s raised by the petitioner-comp a ny, respo n dent No.1 neither reimbursed t h e gratuity amount nor honoure d its contr a ctual obligations. Instead, leg a l notices were issued. Therea f ter, both parties preferred appeals. W hile the petitioner's appeal w as dismi s sed on the ground of delay, th e appeal filed by Respondent N o.1 was allowed vide impugned order dated 28.04.2026. The present peti t ion has b e en filed challenging the aforesa i d order.

(3) Learned counsel for the p e titioner-company further conte n ds that t h e Appellate Authority has ig n ored material evidence on rec o rd, inclu d ing the admission of Respond e nt No.4 that he had worked at the premises of Respondent No.1 an d performed duties assigned by Resp o ndent No.1, as well as the te s timony of respondent No.1's o wn witne s ses admitting that attendanc e of outsourced employees w as maintained by respondent No.1.

(4) Notice is issued to responde n t No.1 only at this stage. (5) Mr. Ranjit Singh Kalra, A dvocate and Ms. Mona Ya d av, Advo c ate have put in appearance on behalf of respondent N o .1PUN S UP. They submit that the imp u gned order passed by the lear n ed Appe l late Authority is well reas o ned and does not warrant a ny SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.06 18:11 I attest to the accuracy andinterf e rence by this Court in exercise o f its writ jurisdiction. integrity of this document

CWP-19640-2026 (O&M) -3-

(6) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-company a nd learn e d counsel for respondent No.1-PUNSUP and have gone thro u gh the re c ord with their able assistance.

(7) The learned Appellate Autho r ity in the impugned order recor d ed a fin d ing with regard to the payment of gratuity that the existence o f an empl o yer-employee relationship wi t h between respondent No.4 a nd respo n dent No.1-PUNSUP could not be proved. On the contrary, it w as estab l ished by way of the material o n record that respondent No.4 w as an e m ployee of M/s Gretis India Private Limited (the petitio n ercomp a ny), was drawing salary fro m it, and had also tendered his resig n ation to the petitioner-compa n y. In view thereof, the lear n ed Appe l late Authority concluded that merely because respondent N o.4 disch a rged his duties at the premi s es of respondent No.1 under the outso u rcing arrangement would not , by itself, make respondent N o.1 liable to pay gratuity.

(8) Learned counsel for the pe t itioner-company has also faile d to demo n strate that the findings rec o rded by the learned Appel l ate Auth o rity suffer from any patent ill e gality, perversity or jurisdicti o nal error warranting interference by t h is Court in exercise of its w rit jurisdiction. The findings recorded ar e based upon the evidence avail a ble on r e cord and cannot be said to be perverse merely because the petiti o ner-company seeks a different a ppreciation or interpretation of the same evidence.

(9) Consequently, no ground is made out for interference with the impu g ned order dated 28.04.2026 (A n nexure P-10) passed by respon d ent

SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.06 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-19640-2026 (O&M) -4-

No.2-Appellate Authority and the p r esent writ petition is, accordin g ly,

dismi s sed.

(10) Civil miscellaneous applicat i on pending, if any, is also disp o sed

of.

(KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE July 03, 2026 SwarnjitS Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.06 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document