CWP No.37 IN TH (212) Parveen Ku The Chief A CORAM H Present KIRTI SIN 1) 226/227 of certiorari fo passed by t No.261 of petitioner's s termination clause conta and, therefo Section 25 No.3794 of 2002 (O&M) 1 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR CWP Date o en Kumar Versus hief Administrator, Housing Board AM HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIR Mr. Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate Ms. Geeta Sharma, Advocate fo **** I SINGH, J. (Oral) The present writ petition ha 27 of the Constitution of India see rari for quashing of the Award dated by the Presiding Officer, Labour 1 of 1996, whereby the reference ner's services was answered against hi ation of his services w.e.f. 29.02.199 contained in Section 2(oo)(bb) of the herefore, did not amount to retrenchm n 25-F of the Act. NJAB AND HARYANA AT IGARH CWP No.3794 of 2002 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.08.2026 ...Petitioner oard Haryana and others ...Respondents KIRTI SINGH vocate for the petitioner. cate for respondents No.1 to 3. on has been filed under Articles ia seeking issuance of a writ of d dated 01.08.2001 (Annexure P-4) abour Court, Ambala in Reference rence regarding termination of the inst him, it having been held that the 02.1996 fell within the exclusionary of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 enchment requiring compliance with ticles it of 4) ence f the t the nary 1947 with SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.08.21 19:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.37 2) engaged as Haryana on letter indica against a s terminated w served a de respondents referred by adjudication record, conc contained in Sections 25 the workma Aggrieved th 3) statement fil self-contradi petitioner w which stood also pleaded was transfer similarly gav to HSEB, No.3794 of 2002 (O&M) 2 The pleaded facts of the case ed as an Electrical Helper by resp na on 01.05.1995 at Panchkula, wit indicating that his engagement was t a specific project. His services ated w.e.f. 29.02.1996 without notice a demand notice dated 26.03.199 dents and, conciliation proceedings h ed by the State Government to the ication. The Labour Court, upon app oncluded that the case of the petiti ned in Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act, a ns 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Act w orkman was accordingly rejected eved thereagainst, the petitioner has fil Learned counsel for the petiti ent filed on behalf of the managemen ontradictory inasmuch as it was plead ner was engaged for electrification w stood completed on 31.05.1995, wh leaded that his services were terminat ansferred to HSEB after that date. It is rly gave inconsistent versions regardin EB, at one point stating it to be e case are that the petitioner was y respondent No.1-Housing Board a, without the written appointment t was only for a specific period or vices were subsequently allegedly notice, compensation or enquiry. He 03.1996 (Annexure P-1) upon the dings having failed, the dispute was o the Labour Court concerned for on appreciation of the evidence on e petitioner fell within the exception Act, and therefore, the provisions of Act were not attracted. The claim of ected vide the impugned Award. has filed the present petition. petitioner submits that the written gement before the Labour Court was s pleaded, on the one hand, that the tion work of Sector 14, Panchkula, 5, while, on the other hand, it was rminated on 29.02.1996 as the work te. It is further submitted that MW-1 egarding the date of transfer of work to be 29.02.1996 and, in cross- was oard ment d or edly . He the was for e on ption ns of m of ard. ritten t was t the kula, was ork 1 work - SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.08.21 19:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.37 examination electrificatio Board at Pan contradiction petitioner's e the finding perverse and and others where the H workman's e of the Act li inferred. 4) Award and, respondents electrificatio taken over b dated 13.06 Housing Bo HSEB, Panc R-2) issued is submitted continued to was always No.3794 of 2002 (O&M) 3 nation, stating it to be 13.06.199 ification work was still continuing at th at Panchkula as on 29.02.1996. It is a dictions, and in the absence of any d ner's engagement was against a specif nding returned by the Labour Cour rse and unsustainable. Learned counse thers v. Telecom District Manager, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held tha an's engagement falls within the exce Act lies on the employer, and such an Per contra, learned counsel for d and, placing reliance upon the writte dents No.1 to 3 in the present p ification work of Sector 14, Panchk over by HSEB with effect from 14.06 13.06.1995 (Annexure R-1) addresse ng Board Haryana to the Executive E , Panchkula, and reiterated in the lette issued by the Executive Engineer (HQ mitted that although the petitioner's ued to be utilised till 29.02.1996 to lways understood, at the time of his 995, and also admitted that ng at the Head Office of the Housing It is also urged that in view of these any document establishing that the specific project or for a fixed tenure, Court under Section 2(oo)(bb) is counsel also relies on S.M. Nilajkar ager, Karnataka, 2003 (4) SCC 27, ld that the burden of proving that a e exception under Section 2(oo)(bb) uch an exception is not to be readily sel for the respondents supports the written statement filed on behalf of ent proceedings, submits that the anchkula, stood transferred to and 14.06.1995, as recorded in the letter dressed by the Assistant Engineer, utive Engineer, Operation Division, e letter dated 26.10.1995 (Annexure er (HQ), Housing Board Haryana. It oner's services as Electrical Helper 96 to assist in the residual work, it of his engagement, that his services that sing these t the nure, b) is jkar , hat a )(bb) adily s the lf of t the and letter neer, sion, xure a. It elper rk, it vices SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.08.21 19:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.37 would come discrepancy this position 5) record. 6) under Articl by a Labour findings of only where or vitiated b possibility o itself, furnis 7) the Labour C engagement (bb) of the I to have been wager. The including th petitioner's work for wh upon cessati No.3794 of 2002 (O&M) 4 come to an end upon completion/tran pancy in dates relied upon by the pe osition. I have heard learned counsel f It is well settled that while exer Articles 226/227 of the Constitution abour Court, this Court does not sit gs of fact recorded by the Labour Co here the findings are shown to be pe iated by an error of law apparent on th ility of another view on appreciatio furnish a ground for interference. The principal issue which arise bour Court was justified in holding th ement fell within the exclusionary cla f the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. T e been returned merely on the basis . The Labour Court considered the ing the muster rolls Ex.M-1 and Ex ner's engagement was connected wi for which he had been engaged and th cessation of the work. on/transfer of the work, and that the the petitioner does not detract from nsel for the parties and perused the le exercising supervisory jurisdiction tution of India over an award passed ot sit as a Court of appeal over the our Court. Interference is warranted be perverse, based on no evidence, t on the face of the record. The mere eciation of evidence would not, by h arises for consideration is whether ding that cessation of the petitioner's ry clause contained in Section 2(oo) 947. The said finding cannot be said basis that the petitioner was a daily d the material produced before it, nd Ex.M-2, and concluded that the ted with the specific electrification and that his services came to an end t the from d the ction ssed r the nted ence, mere t, by ether ner's (oo) said daily re it, t the ation end SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.08.21 19:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.37 8) out the discr which the e mere discrep render the u relied upon 13.06.1995 a their case t while the pe 29.02.1996. 29.02.1996 indefinite na which he wa 9) upon the jud others v. Te contend tha exception co can be no qu this Court is stood discha 10) Labour Cou petitioner's No.3794 of 2002 (O&M) 5 The petitioner has sought to a e discrepancies in the stand of the man the electrification work was transfe discrepancy in the dates does not, in r the ultimate finding of the Labour upon by the respondents, includin .1995 and the subsequent communicati case that the electrification work ha the petitioner continued to be utilised .1996. Thus, the mere fact that the pe .1996 does not, by itself, establish th nite nature or that it had ceased to be he was engaged. No doubt, learned counsel for the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme v. Telecom District Manager, Karn d that the burden of establishing t tion contained in Section 2(oo)(bb) l e no quarrel with the said proposition. ourt is whether, on the material availa discharged in the present case. On consideration of the reco r Court had sufficient material be ner's engagement was linked to th ht to assail this finding by pointing e management regarding the date on transferred to HSEB. However, the ot, in the facts of the present case, abour Court perverse. The material cluding the communication dated unication dated 26.10.1995, supports rk had been transferred to HSEB, ilised thereafter for residual work till the petitioner continued to work till lish that his engagement was of an to be connected with the work for sel for the petitioner has also relied upreme Court in S.M. Nilajkar and Karnataka, 2003 (4) SCC 27, to hing that the case falls within the )(bb) lies upon the employer. There sition. However, the question before available on record, the said burden e record, this Court finds that the ial before it to conclude that the to the electrification work being nting te on , the case, terial ated ports SEB, k till k till f an k for elied nd to the here efore rden t the t the eing SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.08.21 19:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.37 undertaken work agains based upon on no evid supervisory evidence me 11) not advance had complet cessation of is whether t Section 2(oo the exceptio the question 12) cannot be a has relied u material has situated to category, wa embodied in petitioner w of such foun No.3794 of 2002 (O&M) 6 taken by the Housing Board and that against which he was engaged came upon evidence on record and cannot evidence or as being perverse. T isory jurisdiction, would not substitu ce merely because another view may The contention regarding com vance the case of the petitioner. Eve ompleted 240 days, the same would n ion of his engagement amounted to re r the cessation falls within the def n 2(oo) of the Act. Once the finding ception contained in Section 2(oo)(b estion of compliance with Section 25 The challenge founded upon S t be accepted. Insofar as Section 25 elied upon the alleged retention of ial has been brought on record to esta ed to the petitioner, engaged for the ry, was retained after the cessation of died in Section 25-G cannot be invok er with regular employees holding p h foundational facts, no violation of Se d that his services ceased when the came to an end. The finding is thus annot be characterised as one based rse. This Court, in exercise of its ubstitute its own appreciation of the may also be possible. g completion of 240 days also does r. Even assuming that the petitioner ould not, by itself, establish that the d to retrenchment. The first question the definition of retrenchment under inding that the cessation falls within (oo)(bb) is found to be sustainable, on 25-F does not arise. upon Sections 25-G and 25-H also n 25-G is concerned, the petitioner on of other workers. However, no stablish that any person similarly or the same work and in the same ion of his engagement. The principle e invoked merely by comparing the ding permanent posts. In the absence n of Section 25-G is made out. n the thus ased f its f the does ioner t the stion nder ithin able, also ioner r, no ilarly same ciple g the ence SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.08.21 19:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.37 13) daily wager under Secti available to accordance found to fal constitute re petitioner ha the persons originally be 14) before it and that the peti and that its c No material Court ignor unsupported 15) petitioner in the facts of employer to 2(oo)(bb); h existed, but appreciation No.3794 of 2002 (O&M) 7 Similarly, the reliance upon su wagers does not confer any indepen Section 25-H. The right contempl ble to a workman whose service ance with law. Once the cessation of to fall within the exception under S tute retrenchment within the meaning ner has not been able to establish that rsons relied upon by him was for the ly been engaged. Thus, the Labour Court consi it and recorded a finding, on apprecia e petitioner's engagement was for th at its cessation fell within the ambit o aterial has been pointed out which w ignored any material evidence or th ported by the record. The proposition relied upon ner in S.M. Nilajkar's case (supra) d cts of the present case. The burde yer to establish the applicability of (bb); however, the question is not d, but whether the finding recorded ciation of the evidence, suffers from s pon subsequent engagement of other dependent right upon the petitioner ntemplated under Section 25-H is ervices have been retrenched in ion of the petitioner's engagement is nder Section 2(oo)(bb), it does not eaning of the Act. In any event, the h that the subsequent engagement of for the same work for which he had t considered the evidence available preciation of the material on record, for the specific electrification work mbit of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act. ich would establish that the Labour or that its conclusion was wholly upon by learned counsel for the ) does not assist the petitioner in burden undoubtedly lay upon the ity of the exception under Section not merely whether such burden corded by the Labour Court, upon from such perversity or illegality as other ioner H is d in nt is s not t, the nt of had lable cord, work Act. bour holly the er in the ction rden upon ty as SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.08.21 19:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.37 would warr demonstrate 16) perversity, p the learned petitioner's work agains exclusionary Disputes Ac provisions o 17) has not been as would ju jurisdiction India. 18) no merit in t 19) August 13, SwarnjitS No.3794 of 2002 (O&M) 8 warrant interference by this Court. nstrated. On an overall consideration of rsity, patent illegality or jurisdictional arned Labour Court, Ambala. The ner's services was consequent upon against which he had been engaged an ionary clause contained in Section tes Act, 1947, does not call for in ions of Section 25-F are not attracted. Learned counsel for the petition t been able to point out any such infi uld justify interference in exercise of iction of this Court under Articles 2 Accordingly, as a fallout of the rit in the writ petition, the present writ Pending application(s), if any, s st 13, 2026 Whether speaking/reason Whether reportable Court. No such infirmity has been ion of the matter, this Court finds no tional error in the Award passed by The finding that cessation of the t upon completion/cessation of the ged and consequently fell within the ection 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial for interference. Consequently, the acted. etitioner, despite his able assistance, ch infirmity in the impugned Award ise of the extraordinary supervisory cles 226/227 of the Constitution of of the foregoing discussion, finding nt writ petition is dismissed. any, shall also stand disposed of. (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE reasoned: Yes/No ortable: Yes/No been s no d by f the f the n the strial , the ance, ward y n of ding SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.08.21 19:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document