Jaswinder Singh Vs Presiding Officer and Others

The instant petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking setting aside of the order dated 12.12.2019, passed by learned Tribunal, Patiala with a further prayer for issuance of direction to respondent Nos.2 to 4 to reinstate the petitioner on the job being the management with full wages from the date of his termination till reinstatement.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was engaged by the respondent-management as a Helper on 01.04.2008 and was thereafter assigned the duties of Pump Operator at Village Ageta, where he continuously discharged his functions till 01.09.2009. His services, however, were abruptly terminated without issuance of any notice, holding

¶17

of any inquiry or payment of retrenchment compensation, in clear violation

¶18

ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.07.24 13:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶19

CWP-3871-2020 -2-

¶20

of the relevant mandatory provisions contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is further submitted that the petitioner had completed more than 240 days of continuous service in the preceding twelve months. Learned counsel argues that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner, which sufficiently established that he had been performing duties under the direct supervision and control of the respondent-management. Moreover, even the finding regarding the non existence of an employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and the respondent-management is, it is submitted, erroneous and contrary to the evidence on record. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned award be quashed and the petitioner be granted consequential relief.

¶21

Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the Industrial Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim after recording a categorical finding that the petitioner failed to establish any employer-employee relationship with the respondent-management. The petitioner produced no appointment letter, muster roll, attendance or wage record; whereas the respondentdepartment proved through official work orders, cash books and payment records that the operation and maintenance of the Water Supply Scheme at Village Ageta had been entrusted to contractor Amrinder Singh, to whom payments were duly made. Accordingly, the impugned order does not warrant any interference by this Court.

¶22

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the award passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal.

¶23

The petitioner admittedly did not produce any appointment ITHLESH KUMAR letter, engagement order, wage record, attendance register, muster roll or any 2026.07.24 13:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶24

CWP-3871-2020 -3-

¶25

other official document evidencing his appointment or payment of wages by the respondent-management. Even in his cross-examination, he admitted that no appointment letter had ever been issued to him, his attendance was never recorded in the departmental attendance register and he possessed no documentary proof showing payment of wages by the respondentmanagement. On the contrary, the respondent-department produced contemporaneous official records demonstrating that the operation and maintenance of the water supply scheme at Village Ageta during the relevant period had been awarded to contractor Amarinder Singh through the prescribed contractual process, and that payments were released to the said contractor from time to time. These records lend due corroboration to the defence that the work, if any, performed by the petitioner was under the contractor and not pursuant to any direct engagement by the respondentmanagement.

¶26

The Tribunal also considered the log book and other documents relied upon by the petitioner and assigned cogent reasons for declining to place reliance upon them. It noticed that the authenticity of the documents remained unproved, and that even the officials whose signatures allegedly appeared thereon were never examined.

¶27

In the considered opinion of this Court, the findings recorded by the Tribunal are founded upon the correct appreciation of the evidence available on record. Trite to say that this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India does not sit as an Appellate Court to re-appreciate factual findings in the absence of any manifest illegality or perversity. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any

¶28

ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.07.24 13:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶29

CWP-3871-2020 -4-

¶30

jurisdictional error, violation of principles of natural justice or patent illegality, warranting any interference by this Court.

¶31