Naresh Kumar vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court Ambala And Others

CWP-23284 of 2019 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(280) CWP-23284 of 2019 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 12.11.2026
NARESH KUMAR
.....Petitioner
Versus
THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, AMBALA AND
ORS.
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
Present: Mr. Jasmeet Singh Bedi, Advocate,
Mr. Praful Prakash Ramanand, Advocate,
Mr. Kabir Singh Bedi, Advocate and
Mr. Kartik Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Chirag Wadhwa, DAG, Haryana.

KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL)
1. By way of the present writ petition filed under Articles 226/227
of the Constitution of India, the petitioner impugns the Award dated
22.03.2019 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour
Court, Ambala, in Reference No.1/2018, whereby the claim petition filed by
the petitioner was dismissed and the reference was answered against him.
2. Briefly stated, the case set up by the petitioner is that he was
engaged by the respondent-management as a Pump Attendant/Keyman on
25.02.2012 and continued to work till 06.11.2017. It is his case that during
this period he worked at different locations under the respondent-
management and had completed more than 240 days of continuous service.
He alleges that his services were terminated on 06.11.2017 without
ITHLESH KUMAR
2026.11.13 14:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CWP-23284 of 2019 (O&M) -2-
complying with the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 (for short, 'the Act'). It is further his case that persons junior to him
were retained in service and fresh hands were engaged even after his
termination, in violation of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act. Accordingly,
he raised an industrial dispute seeking reinstatement with continuity of
service and full back wages.
3. The respondent-management contested the claim, primarily
asserting that the work relating to Pump Attendant/Keyman had been
entrusted to enlisted contractors and that the petitioner, if at all, had worked
under such contractors and not as an employee directly engaged by the
respondent-Department. It was further pleaded that the contractors were
responsible for engaging the persons and paying their wages and that the
respondent-management had no role in the alleged termination of the
petitioner's services.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Labour
Court framed issues, including whether the alleged termination of the
petitioner's services was illegal and whether he was entitled to reinstatement
with continuity of service and full back wages. The onus to prove the first
issue was placed upon the workman. The management also raised an
objection regarding the existence of an employer-employee relationship
between the parties. Upon appreciation of the material on record, the learned
Labour Court noticed the testimony of MW-1, Sh. Pardeep Kumar, Sub
Divisional Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, who stated that
32 Tubewell Operators were working under the respondent-Department
through enlisted contractors, for two hours in the morning and two hours in
the evening. It was further noticed that the petitioner was stated to have
ITHLESH KUMAR
2026.11.13 14:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CWP-23284 of 2019 (O&M) -3-
worked as a Tubewell Operator through an enlisted contractor. The
management also relied upon the subsequent Government policy under
which ITI-qualified candidates were being engaged as Tubewell Operators,
whereas the petitioner possessed the qualification of 10+2. The learned
Labour Court, accordingly, answered Issue No.1 against the workman and in
favour of the management. It further recorded that Issues No.2 to 6 were
neither supported by evidence nor pressed during arguments. Consequently,
the claim petition was dismissed vide the impugned Award dated
22.03.2019.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned
Labour Court failed to appreciate that the petitioner had worked
continuously from 14.03.2012 till 06.11.2017 and had completed more than
240 days of service. It is submitted that the respondent-management, in its
written statement, had acknowledged that the work of Pump
Attendant/Keyman was being performed through enlisted contractors.
According to learned counsel, the fact that the petitioner worked through
contractors could not, by itself, defeat his claim, particularly when he had
been performing work at different locations relating to the respondent-
Department. It is further contended that the learned Labour Court failed to
consider the petitioner's assertion regarding retention of junior persons and
engagement of fresh hands after his termination. It is also argued that the
petitioner was engaged as a Pump Attendant/Keyman and not as a Tubewell
Operator and, therefore, the subsequent requirement of an ITI qualification
for the latter post could not have been applied to his case. It is accordingly
prayed that the impugned Award be set aside.
ITHLESH KUMAR
2026.11.13 14:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CWP-23284 of 2019 (O&M) -4-
6. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the findings
recorded by the learned Labour Court are based upon the evidence available
on record. It is contended that the petitioner was never directly engaged by
the respondent-Department and that the work in question had been entrusted
to enlisted contractors. The petitioner having failed to establish his
entitlement to the relief claimed, no interference with the impugned Award
is warranted.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
relevant material on record
8. The principal grievance of the petitioner is that he had worked
continuously for the respondent-management for more than 240 days and
that his services were terminated without compliance with Section 25-F of
the Act. However, a claim of completion of 240 days of service, by itself, is
not sufficient. The workman is required to establish the requisite continuous
service contemplated under Section 25-B of the Act, particularly in the
twelve months preceding the date of the alleged termination, before the
protection under Section 25-F can be invoked.
9. In the present case, although the petitioner asserted that he had
worked continuously from 14.03.2012 till 06.11.2017, the material on record
does not satisfactorily establish the requisite continuous service in the twelve
months immediately preceding the alleged termination in the manner
contemplated by the Act. The assertion regarding the duration of
engagement, without sufficient supporting material establishing the actual
period of employment and the requisite continuous service, cannot by itself
form the basis for holding the termination to be in violation of Section 25-F
of the Act.
ITHLESH KUMAR
2026.11.13 14:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CWP-23284 of 2019 (O&M) -5-
10. It is also significant that the respondent-management
consistently maintained that the work relating to Pump Attendant/Keyman
had been entrusted to enlisted contractors. Its written statement
acknowledges that the work was being performed through contractors, but
specifically denies that the petitioner was directly appointed or engaged by
the Department. The statement regarding the work having been entrusted to
contractors cannot, therefore, be construed as an admission that the
petitioner was directly employed by the respondent-management. The
testimony of MW-1 is also in consonance with the aforesaid stand of the
management. He specifically stated that Tubewell Operators were working
through enlisted contractors. The petitioner's assertion that he had worked at
different locations relating to the respondent-Department, therefore, has to
be considered in the context of the admitted arrangement under which the
work was being executed through contractors.
11. It is not disputed that the petitioner claims to have performed
work relating to the Department's water supply system. However, the mere
performance of such work, without establishing the necessary facts
concerning the nature and terms of engagement, cannot automatically
establish direct employment with the respondent-Department. The
distinction between the Department entrusting work to contractors and itself
engaging the persons performing that work is material.
12. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the
management had admitted his engagement as a Pump Attendant/Keyman
also requires consideration in the aforesaid context. A reading of the written
statement as a whole shows that the management acknowledged the
requirement of such work but specifically denied having appointed or
ITHLESH KUMAR
2026.11.13 14:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CWP-23284 of 2019 (O&M) -6-
engaged the petitioner. Its stand throughout was that the petitioner, if at all,
had worked under the contractors. Thus, the admission regarding the work
being performed through contractors cannot be read as an admission of
direct employment of the petitioner by the respondent-management. Further,
the petitioner's assertion regarding engagement of junior persons and fresh
hands after his alleged termination was required to be substantiated by
material establishing the relevant facts. Mere allegations in the claim
statement, without sufficient supporting evidence, cannot establish a
violation of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act.
13. Insofar as the issue regarding the qualification prescribed for
Tubewell Operators is concerned, the petitioner has consistently asserted
that he was engaged as a Pump Attendant/Keyman, whereas the
management witness referred to the persons working through enlisted
contractors as Tubewell Operators. The distinction in the designations, as
pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, is a matter which cannot be
overlooked. Nevertheless, even if the petitioner's contention regarding the
designation is accepted for the sake of consideration, the same would not, by
itself, establish his entitlement to reinstatement against the respondent-
management. The claim was required to be established on the basis of the
evidence regarding the nature of engagement and the statutory requirements
governing the alleged termination.
14. The learned Labour Court, after considering the evidence led by
the parties, answered the first issue against the petitioner. The petitioner has
not been able to show on the basis of the material available on record, that
the conclusion reached by the learned Labour Court on the principal issue
ITHLESH KUMAR
2026.11.13 14:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CWP-23284 of 2019 (O&M) -7-
suffers from such perversity or patent illegality as would warrant
interference in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction.
15. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under Articles
226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court does not sit as an
appellate authority over the findings recorded by the Labour Court.
Interference is warranted where the impugned Award suffers from patent
illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error or is based on no evidence. The
supervisory jurisdiction does not permit a fresh appraisal of the evidence
merely because another view may also be possible. In the present case, the
petitioner has failed to show any such infirmity in the impugned Award
warranting interference by this Court.
16. In view of the foregoing discussion, no ground is made out to
interfere with the Award dated 22.03.2019 passed by the learned Labour
Court, Ambala.
17. Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same is
accordingly dismissed.
(KIRTI SINGH)
JUDGE
November 12, 2026
Ithlesh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
ITHLESH KUMAR
2026.11.13 14:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment