Karanbir vs Presiding Officer Labour Court Ambala And Ors

CWP No. 4043 of 2017 - 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(221-3) CWP No. 4043 of 2017
Date of Decision: 02.11.2026
Karanbir .....Petitioner
Versus
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and Others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
Present: Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Kapil Bansal, DAG, Haryana.

KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL)
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of the Award dated
18.08.2016 (Annexure P-6) passed by the learned Labour Court, Ambala,
whereby the reference raised by the petitioner-workman was answered
against him.
2. Briefly stated, as per the pleaded case, the petitioner is that he
was appointed as a Sweeper-cum-Sewadar at ESI Hospital, Jagadhri, on
15.09.2008 and continued to work there until 31.03.2011. According to him,
his services were verbally terminated on the said date without issuance of
any notice or payment of retrenchment compensation, in violation of Section
25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act'). He further
alleged that the management had retained junior workers and engaged fresh
workers in his place, in violation of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act. His
last drawn wages were stated to be Rs.3,750/- per month. On these premises,
he sought reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages.
3. On the other hand, respondent No.2, Vinay Kumar, pleaded that
RITIKA
2026.11.05 16:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP No. 4043 of 2017 - 2-
he had a contract with the Hospital Development Committee of ESI
Hospital, Jagadhri, for annual repair and maintenance works, including
cleanliness, for a fixed period from 01.09.2010 to 31.03.2011, which was
stated to have been extended for a further period of three months. It was
pleaded that upon expiry of the contract, no further contract or work existed
and that the engagement of the petitioner came to an end with the contract
period. Respondent No.3, ESI Hospital, Jagadhri, denied an employer-
employee relationship and asserted that the petitioner was engaged through
service providers/contractors from time to time, and not directly by the
Hospital.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Labour
inter alia
Court framed issues, , whether the termination of the workman’s
services was illegal and whether he was entitled to reinstatement, back
wages and continuity of service and whether the petitioner was a workman
and respondent No.1 an industry under the Act. The parties led their
respective evidence. The workman examined himself as WW2 and Kamal
Kant and Sukhdev Raj as WW1 and WW3, respectively, whereas the
management examined Dr. Anuradha, Medical Superintendent, ESI Hospital,
Jagadhri (MW-1), and Vinay Kumar (MW-2).
5. Vide the impugned Award dated 18.08.2016, the learned Labour
Court held that the petitioner had been engaged through contractors and,
lastly, through respondent No.2 for the period from 01.09.2010 to
31.03.2011 to work as a Sweeper at the Hospital. The learned Labour Court
further observed that there was no evidence to establish that wages had been
paid directly to the petitioner by ESI Hospital, Jagadhri. Accordingly, it held
that the employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and the
RITIKA
2026.11.05 16:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP No. 4043 of 2017 - 3-
Hospital had not been established and answered the reference against him.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Labour
Court failed to appreciate that the petitioner had worked at the Hospital from
15.09.2008 and that his services were terminated without compliance with
Section 25-F of the Act. It is argued that the work of cleanliness continued
even after the petitioner’s removal and that other persons were engaged in
his place, attracting Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act. It is further
submitted that the absence of requisite registration/licence under the
Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, and the Labour
Commissioner, Haryana’s letter dated 21.10.2010 (Annexure P-7), support
the petitioner’s claim for protection and re-engagement.
Per contra
7. , learned State counsel submits that the Government
of Haryana had taken a policy decision to outsource various services to meet
the emergent requirement of staff, pursuant to which the maintenance of ESI
Hospital, Jagadhri, was entrusted to different contractors from time to time.
It is contended that the petitioner was engaged as a cleanliness worker
through M/s Jagdamba Building Contractor and was never appointed or
terminated by respondent No. 3. Learned State counsel further submits that
the petitioner was employed by the contractor, who was responsible for
supplying manpower to the Hospital, and that no employer-employee
relationship existed between the petitioner and respondent No. 3.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
relevant material on record.
9. The question which arises for consideration is whether the
findings of the Labour Court, that the petitioner was engaged through
contractors and that a direct employer-employee relationship with ESI
RITIKA
2026.11.05 16:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP No. 4043 of 2017 - 4-
Hospital, Jagadhri, was not proved, suffer from perversity or patent illegality
warranting interference in writ jurisdiction.
10. A perusal of the Award and the evidence on record shows that
the Hospital consistently denied any direct employment of the petitioner and
stated that cleanliness work was carried out through contractors. MW-1, Dr.
Anuradha, stated that the petitioner was engaged through M/s Jagdamba
Building Contractor for the contract period from 01.09.2010 to 31.03.2011.
MW-2, Vinay Kumar, also stated that the petitioner was engaged by him as a
Sweeper and that his services ended with the expiry of the contract.
11. The aforesaid stand is supported by the admissions of the
petitioner and other witnesses. The petitioner admitted that no appointment
letter was issued to him, while WW-3 stated that he was appointed by
contractor Vinay Kumar and WW-1 admitted that the contractor paid his
wages. These facts indicate that the petitioner was engaged through the
contractor and that no direct employer-employee relationship with the
Hospital was established. Further, merely performing cleanliness work
within the Hospital premises does not establish direct employment, as the
crucial issue is whether the petitioner was engaged and paid by the Hospital
or by the contractor.
12. It is well settled that the mere fact that a workman performs
duties within the premises of an establishment, or that his work is necessary
for its functioning, does not by itself establish an employer-employee
relationship with that establishment. At the same time, the description of a
person as a contract worker or the existence of an agreement with a
contractor cannot be treated as conclusive. The Court has to examine the
substance of the arrangement and determine who, in reality, exercised the
RITIKA
2026.11.05 16:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP No. 4043 of 2017 - 5-
authority of an employer over the workman.
13. In this regard, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Waterfront Workers,
(2001) 7 SCC 1, is instructive. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that
where a genuine contract-labour arrangement exists, the mere engagement of
contract labour does not automatically create an employer-employee
relationship between the principal employer and the workers engaged
through the contractor. However, where the contract is found to be sham,
nominal or a mere camouflage, the industrial adjudicator is competent to lift
the veil and determine the real relationship between the parties. The inquiry,
therefore, has to be directed towards the genuineness of the contractual
arrangement and the actual relationship governing the engagement of the
workman.
14. Examining the present case in the light of the aforesaid
principle, the evidence reveals that the cleanliness and maintenance work at
ESI Hospital, Jagadhri, was entrusted to different contractors from time to
time. MW-1, Dr. Anuradha, stated that the petitioner was never employed by
the Hospital and was instead engaged through M/s Jagdamba Building
Contractor. MW-2, Vinay Kumar, also stated that he had engaged the
petitioner as a Sweeper for the duration of his contract. The petitioner
himself admitted that no appointment letter had been issued to him by the
Hospital. These circumstances indicate that his engagement was through the
contractor and not by way of direct appointment by the Hospital.
15. The petitioner's assertion that he had been working at the
Hospital since 15.09.2008 has to be considered in the context of the
successive contractors engaged for the cleanliness work. The Award records
RITIKA
2026.11.05 16:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP No. 4043 of 2017 - 6-
that the petitioner was lastly engaged through M/s Jagdamba Building
Contractor for the relevant period. The petitioner has not been able to
demonstrate from the material on record that the contractual arrangement
was sham or nominal, or that the contractor was merely an intermediary
while the Hospital itself exercised the authority of an employer over him.
The mere fact that the petitioner performed the same nature of work at the
same premises for a considerable period cannot, by itself, establish direct
employment with the Hospital.
16. The evidence regarding the payment of wages also assumes
significance. The petitioner has not established that his wages were paid
directly by ESI Hospital, Jagadhri. Rather, the evidence noticed by the
learned Labour Court indicates that the contractor was responsible for
paying wages to the petitioner. The payment of wages by the contractor,
coupled with the absence of any appointment letter issued by the Hospital,
supports the conclusion that the petitioner was engaged through the service
provider. No material has been brought on record to show that the Hospital
itself appointed the petitioner, regulated his service conditions or exercised
the authority to terminate his engagement.
17. The contention regarding non-registration of the principal
employer or absence of licence of the contractor under the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, also requires consideration. This
admission is a relevant circumstance and cannot be ignored. Sections 7 and
12 of the aforesaid enactment impose statutory obligations upon the
principal employer and the contractor respectively. Their non-compliance
may attract consequences contemplated under that legislation. However, the
absence of registration or a licence does not, by itself, result in automatic
RITIKA
2026.11.05 16:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP No. 4043 of 2017 - 7-
absorption of contract labour or establish a direct employer-employee
relationship with the principal employer. In the present case, the evidence
noticed by the learned Labour Court does not establish such a relationship
with the Hospital.
18. The distinction is important. The question whether the statutory
requirements under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act,
1970, have been complied with is distinct from the question whether the
contractual arrangement was genuine or merely a device to conceal direct
employment. The latter question has to be determined on the basis of the
evidence concerning the actual relationship between the parties. In the
present case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the agreements
executed with the contractors were sham or that the contractors were merely
names interposed by the Hospital to conceal its own employment
relationship with him. The absence of registration or licence, therefore, does
not, by itself, displace the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court.
19. The plea of violation of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the
Act is based upon the petitioner's assertion that he was an employee of the
Hospital and that the Hospital terminated his services or replaced him with
other workers. The learned Labour Court, on appreciation of the evidence,
found that the petitioner was engaged through the contractor. The petitioner
has not shown that the Hospital itself issued any termination order or
exercised the authority to discontinue his engagement. Nor does the mere
allegation that Subhash Kumar and another lady Sweeper were engaged in
his place, without establishing the relevant employer-workman relationship
and the statutory conditions, establish a violation by the Hospital.
20. The cessation of a contractor's work arrangement and the end of
RITIKA
2026.11.05 16:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP No. 4043 of 2017 - 8-
the engagement of a worker deployed by that contractor cannot, on the
material available in the present case, automatically be equated with
retrenchment by the principal employer. The claim against the Hospital has
to be assessed on the basis of the relationship established before the learned
Labour Court. The petitioner has failed to establish that the Hospital itself
was responsible for discontinuing his services. The question of any
independent liability of the contractor, if arising from a separate employment
relationship, would have to be examined on the basis of the relevant
evidence.
21. The allegation regarding the engagement of junior workers and
fresh persons in place of the petitioner also does not lead to a different
conclusion. The petitioner was required to establish that the Hospital was his
employer and that the alleged subsequent engagement of other workers was
attributable to the Hospital. In the absence of proof of such relationship, the
alleged engagement of Subhash Kumar and another lady Sweeper cannot, by
itself, establish a violation of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act by the
Hospital. The findings of the learned Labour Court on this aspect are
supported by the evidence on record.
22. The petitioner has also relied upon the letter dated 21.10.2010
issued by the Labour Commissioner, Haryana, contending that where the
work of the same nature is again allotted to a contractor, a workman whose
services have been discontinued is required to be given priority in re-
employment. The said letter has been noticed. However, the petitioner has
not established the factual foundation necessary to demonstrate that the said
direction was attracted to the precise contractual arrangement in question or
that the Hospital had acted contrary to an enforceable obligation arising
RITIKA
2026.11.05 16:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP No. 4043 of 2017 - 9-
therefrom. The letter cannot, in the absence of proof of the requisite
circumstances, be treated as establishing a direct employer-employee
relationship between the petitioner and the Hospital. Nor can it, by itself,
displace the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court on the basis of
the evidence concerning the successive contractors.
23. The reliance placed upon Hargurpratap Singh v. State of
Punjab, (2007) 13 SCC 292 , is also required to be considered. The principle
that an ad hoc employee should not ordinarily be replaced by another ad hoc
employee is well recognised. However, the application of that principle
depends upon the nature of the original engagement and the identity of the
employer. In the present case, the petitioner has not established that he was
directly appointed by the Hospital. Rather, the evidence indicates that he had
been engaged through contractors entrusted with the cleanliness and
maintenance work. The subsequent engagement of other workers, therefore,
cannot be treated as a replacement by the Hospital of its own employee.
24. Once the petitioner has failed to establish the employer-
employee relationship with ESI Hospital, Jagadhri, the allegation that the
Hospital illegally terminated his services in violation of Section 25-F of the
Act cannot be accepted. Likewise, the allegations under Sections 25-G and
25-H cannot be fastened upon the Hospital merely on the basis of the
subsequent deployment of other workers by the incoming contractor. It is
clarified that the aforesaid conclusion is confined to the claim of direct
employment and the alleged statutory violations against the Hospital on the
material placed before the learned Labour Court. The question whether any
independent liability under the Act would require examination of the
particular employment relationship and the evidence relevant thereto. The
RITIKA
2026.11.05 16:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP No. 4043 of 2017 - 10-
mere failure to establish direct employment with the Hospital cannot, by
itself, be treated as a declaration that no statutory obligation could arise
against a contractor.
25. The scope of interference by this Court in exercise of
jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is also
well settled. This Court does not sit as an appellate court over the findings
recorded by the Labour Court and would not ordinarily substitute its own
appreciation of evidence merely because another view may be possible.
Interference is warranted where the findings are perverse, based on no
evidence, suffer from patent illegality or disclose an error of jurisdiction. In
the present case, the learned Labour Court has considered the pleadings and
evidence, including the testimony of the Hospital's witness, the contractor
and the admissions noticed above. The conclusion that direct employment
with the Hospital was not established is supported by the material on record.
The petitioner has, therefore, failed to demonstrate that the conclusion drawn
by the learned Labour Court is one which no reasonable adjudicator could
have reached on the material available on record.
26. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the questions arising
from the issues framed by the learned Labour Court stand answered against
the petitioner insofar as his claim of direct employment with ESI Hospital,
Jagadhri, and the consequential relief sought against the Hospital are
concerned. The petitioner has failed to establish that the Hospital was his
employer or that it had retrenched his services in violation of the provisions
of the Act. The material regarding the subsequent engagement of other
workers and the non-compliance with the registration and licensing
requirements under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act,
RITIKA
2026.11.05 16:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP No. 4043 of 2017 - 11-
1970, does not, in the facts of the present case, establish the direct employer-
employee relationship asserted by him. No perversity, patent illegality or
jurisdictional error in the impugned Award has, therefore, been made out
warranting interference by this Court.
27. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in
the present writ petition.
28. Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed.
29. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand
disposed of.
(KIRTI SINGH)
JUDGE
November 02, 2026
Ritika
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
RITIKA
2026.11.05 16:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document