Dismissed¶42

Surinder Singh v. Presiding Officer and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Jul 2026CWP/20123/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWP-20123-2026 (O&M); Punjab & Haryana High Court; Justice Kirti Singh; Industrial Tribunal Bathinda award dated 23.10.2025 (Annexure P-14); reinstatement with continuity of service; full back wages; retrenchment compensation; termination without notice, charge-sheet or enquiry; Computer Operator; out-servicing/outsourcing engagement; perverse findings; writ jurisdiction under Article 226; Workmen of Nilgiri Coop. Marketing Society 2004(3) SCC 514; Surendranagar District Panchayat 2005(8) SCC 750; Section 25F; Section 25B; writ petition dismissed in limine.

What did the court decide?

Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to establish that the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned award are perverse or contrary to the pleadings and evidence brought on record. ¶40

Surinder Singh Vs Presiding Officer and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

CWP-20123-2026 (O&M) -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

(105) CWP-20123-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 07.07.2026

SURINDER SINGH

......Petiti o ner

Versu s

PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BATHINDA AND ORS.

¶8

.....Respond e nts

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH

¶10

Present: Mr. Puneet Kumar Bansal, A d vocate for the petitioner.

¶11

¶12

KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)

¶13

(1) The challenge in the prese n t writ petition, filed under Art i cle 226 of the Constitution of India, is to the award dated 23.10.2 0 25 (A n nexure P-14) passed by the le a rned Industrial Tribunal, Bathi n da (he r einafter referred to as "the Tri b unal"), whereby the claim of the peti t ioner seeking reinstatement w ith continuity of service and full bac k wages has been dismissed.

¶14

(2) It has been agitated by the le a rned counsel for the petitioner t hat the petitioner was employed a s a Computer Operator by the res p ondent-Bank on 01.06.2010. H i s services were allegedly, how e ver ter m inated without holding any e nquiry and without payment of retr e nchment compensation on 01.11.2012. He challenged his ter m ination by filing a claim befor e the Industrial Tribunal. Therea f ter, SWARNJIT SINGH2026.07.13 17:12 the r espondent-Bank, though did not deny the period of employment of I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

CWP-20123-2026 (O&M) -2-

¶16

the petitioner, but claimed to have availed the services on an o utser v icing basis for short period a n d for specific work. However, no evi d ence in support of this cont e ntion, including any outsour c ing pol i cy, was placed on record. Yet, t h e claim filed by the petitioner w as wrongly dismissed by the Ld. In d ustrial Tribunal vide award d a ted 07. 1 2.2015. The said award was c h allenged by the petitioner by fi l ing Civ i l Writ Petition No. 6173 of 2 016, which was allowed and the mat t er was remanded back to the Industrial Tribunal. Thereafter the clai m of the petitioner was again d i smissed by the Industrial Tribu n al, Bat h inda vide order dated 23.10.20 2 5, which is under challenge in the pre s ent petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has emphasized t hat no evidence was led by the re s pondent-Bank to prove that the peti t ioner had been engaged throu g h out-servicing, on which gro u nd the claim of the petitioner was wro n gly dismissed. It is submitted t hat the factum of employment of t he workman-petitioner with the res p ondent-Bank was never disputed, nor was any document produced by t he respondent-Bank to prove t h at the petitioner had been enga g ed con t ractually only for a specific p u rpose. Rather, the services of the wo r kman-petitioner were terminate d without any notice, charge-sheet, enq u iry, or payment of compensati o n. Therefore, the impugned or d er, which is based on an erroneous app r eciation of facts, deserves to be set asi d e.

¶17

(3) I have heard learned couns e l for the petitioner and have g o ne thr o ugh the record with his able ass i stance.

¶18

SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.13 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

CWP-20123-2026 (O&M) -3-

¶20

(4) Before proceeding further, a gainful reference can be mad e to the j u dgment passed by the Hon’bl e Supreme Court in Workmen of Nilgiri Coop. Marketing Society Limited Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2004(3) SCC 514, w h erein elaborate observations w ere made with regard to the employer employee relationship betwee n a claim a nt and an employee. Relevant p ortion of the same reads thus:-

¶21

“xxx 32. Determination of the vexe d questions as to whether a contract is a contract of service or contract f or service and whether the conce r ned employees are employees of the c ontractors has never been an easy t ask. No decision of this Court has la i d down any hard and fast rule nor it is possible to do so. The question i n each case has to be answered ha v ing regard to the fact involved therei n . No single test - be it control test, b e it organisation or any other test - has been held to be the determin a tive factor for determining the jural r e lationship of employer and employee . 33. There are cases arising o n the borderline between what is clearly an employer-employee relation and what is clearly the indepen d ent entrepreneurial dealing.

¶22

TESTS:

¶23

34. This Court beginning fr o m Shivanandan Sharma Vs. Punjab National Bank Ltd. [1955] 1 L.L.J. 688 : AIR 1955 SC 404 and Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. State of Saurashtra and others [1957] 1 L.L.J. 477 : AIR 1957 SC 264 observed that supervision and control test is the prima facie t est for determining the relationshi p of employment. The nature or exte n t of control required to establish s uch relationship would vary from b u siness to business and, thus, cannot be given a precise definition. The n a ture of business for the said purpo s e is also a relevant factor. Instances a re galore there where having rega r d to conflict in decisions in relation t o the similar set of facts, the Parlia m ent has to intervene as, for example, i n the case of workers rolling bidis.

¶24

35. In a given case it may not be possible to infer that a relationsh ip of employer and employee has come into being only because some per s ons had been more or less continu o usly working in a particular pre m ises inasmuch as even in relation th e reto the actual nature of work don e by them coupled with other circumst a nces would have a role to play.

¶25

36. In V.P. Gopala Rao Vs. Public Prosecutor, Andhra Pradesh [1970] 2 L.L.J. 59 : AIR 1970 SC 66, this Court said that it is a que s tion of fact in each case whether the r elationship of master and servant e x ists between the management and t h e workmen and there is no abstra c t a priori test of the work control r equired for establishing the contr o l of service. A brief resume of the development of law in this point was necessary only for the purpose o f showing that it would not be prude n t to search for a formula in the nat u re of a single test for determining the vexed question.

¶26

SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.13 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

CWP-20123-2026 (O&M) -4-

¶28

RELEVANT FACTORS:

¶29

37. The control test and the organization test, therefore, are not the only factors which can be said to d ecisive. With a view of elicit the ans w er, the court is required to consid e r several factors which would ha v e a bearing on the result : (a) who is appointing authority; (b) who is the pay master; (c) who can dismiss; (d) how long alternative service lasts; e ) the extent of control and supervision ; (f) the nature of the job, e.g. wheth e r, it is professional or skilled work; ( g) nature of establishment; (h) the rig h t to reject.

¶30

38. With a view to find out r e asonable solution in a problematic c ase of this nature, what is needed is a n integrated approach meaning the r eby integration of the relevant tests w herefor it may be necessary to exa m ine as to whether the workman c o ncerned was fully integrated into the employer's concern meaning the r eby independent of the concern alth o ugh attached therewith to some extent . ”

¶31

(5) Reference can also be mad e to the explanation of the rele v ant

¶32

provi s ions, as made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surendranagar District Panchayat v. Dahyabhai Amarsinh, 2005(8) SCC 750 , w h ich

¶33

reads thus:-

¶34

“ xxxx

¶35

To attract the provision s of Section 25F, one of the cond i tion required is that the workman is e m ployed in any industry for a contin u ous period which would not be not l e ss than one year. Section 25B of the Act defines continuous service for th e purposes of Chapter V-A "Lay-off and Retrenchment". The purport of th i s Section is that if a workman has p u t in an uninterrupted service of the e s tablishment, including the service w h ich may be interrupted on account o f sickness, authorized leave, an acci d ent, a strike which is not illegal, a loc k -out or cessation of work, that is not due to any fault on the part of the w o rkman, shall be said to be a contin u ous service, for that period. Thus the workmen shall be said to b e in continuous service for one year i . e., 12 months irrespective of the nu m ber of days he has actually worked w i th interrupted service, permissible u n der Section 25B. However, the work m en must have been in service durin g the period, i.e., not only on the date w hen he actually worked but also o n the days he could not work under the circumstances set out in Sub-Section (1). The workmen must be in the emp l oyment of the employer concerned o n the days he has actually worked bu t also on the days on which he has not worked. The import of Sub Secti o n(1) of Section 25B is that the work m en should be in the employment of the employer for the continuous, uninterrupted period for one y ear except the period the absenc e is permissible as mentioned herei n above. Sub-section (2) of Section 25B introduces the fiction to the ef fe ct that even if the workman is n o t in continuous service within the me a ning of Clause (i) of Section 25-B fo r the period of one year or six month s he shall be deemed to be in contin u ous service for that period under an employer if he has actually worked fo r the

¶36

SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.13 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶37

CWP-20123-2026 (O&M) -5-

¶38

days specified in clause (a) and (b ) of Sub-section (2). By the legal fi c tion of Sub-section 2(a) (i), the work m en shall be deemed to be in contin u ous service for one year if he is empl o yed underground in a mine for 190 d ays or 240 days in any other case. P rovisions of the Section postulate th a t if the workmen has put in at least 2 40 days with his employer, immedi a tely prior to the date of retrenchment , he shall be deemed to have served w ith the employer for a period of one y ear to get the benefit of Section 25F. ”

¶39

(6) It was the claim that the pe t itioner had joined the respond e ntBa n k on 01.06.2010 and his servi c es were terminated on 01.11.2 0 12, wit h out any notice, charge-sheet , enquiry, or compensation. T he Tri b unal, on the basis of the evide n ce led by the parties, came to the con c lusion that the workman did n o t place on record any docume n t to pro v e that he had either been ap p ointed by the bank, that too after foll o wing due process, or that he w as a regular employee of the b a nk. Mo r eover, the learned Tribunal observed that the claimant, in his cro s s-examination, had contende d that he was appointed a s a Co m puter Operator for converting the manual work of the Bank i nto co m puterized operations; howeve r , no proof of any advertise m ent published in any newspaper for th e said post, or of any appoint m ent lett e r issued to him, was placed on record. Rather, the fact that the clai m ant had been engaged on an o u tsourcing basis only for a spe c ific period till the completion of the w o rk could not be duly controver t ed. It w as therefore that the impugned order dismissing the claims of the peti t ioner was passed.

¶40

(7) Learned counsel for the peti t ioner has not been able to estab l ish that the findings recorded by the l earned Tribunal while passing the impugned award are perverse or co n trary to the pleadings and evide n ce SWARNJIT SINGH bro u ght on record. In the absen c e of any perversity having been 2026.07.13 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶41

CWP-20123-2026 (O&M) -6-

¶42

poi n ted out in the award passed by the learned Tribunal, no ground for inte r ference by this Court is made o ut and the present writ petitio n is, acc o rdingly, dismissed in limine .

¶43

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

¶44

of.

¶45

(KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE

¶46

July 07, 2026 SwarnjitS

¶47

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶48

SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.13 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Surinder Singh v. Presiding Officer and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surinder Singh v. Presiding Officer and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shashi Gupta Vs State of Haryana

Frontier Transport Co. Regd through Its Authorised Representative Vs State Transport Appellate Tribunal Punjab and Ors.

Sifti Transport and Bus Service Regd Amritsar Vs the State Transport Appellate Tribunal Punjab through Its Presiding Officer

Sucha Singh Vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda and Another

Executive Engineer, Samalkha Water Servi Vs Jaibir Singh and Anr.

Dharambir Bhasin Vs Maintenance Tribunal Senior Citizen Sub Division,Rohtak and Others