CWP-19640 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT (109) M/S GRETIS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED PUNJAB (PUNSUP) AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE Present: KIRTI SINGH (1) 226/227 of the Constitution of India (Annexure P whereby the appeal filed by Respondent No.1 Supplies Corporation Limited allowed and the petitioner payment of gratuity to Respondent No.4. (2) respondent No.4 was deployed 18.02.2013 and continuously worked under the supervision, control and directions of deployment, gratuity and other statutory liabilities formed part of the “cost to the 19640-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH M/S GRETIS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Versus PUNJAB STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED (PUNSUP) AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Mr. Radesh Kumar Kalra, Advocate for the petitioner. **** KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL) The challenge in the instant 226/227 of the Constitution of India (Annexure P-10) passed by Respondent No.2 whereby the appeal filed by Respondent No.1 Supplies Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘ allowed and the petitioner-company payment of gratuity to Respondent No.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner espondent No.4 was deployed with Respondent No.1 18.02.2013 and continuously worked under the supervision, control and directions of respondent No.1 right u deployment, gratuity and other statutory liabilities formed part of the cost to the organization” and were specifically stipulated to be IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-19640-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.07.2026 M/S GRETIS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ......Petitioner Versus CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED .....Respondent MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH , Advocate for the petitioner. The challenge in the instant writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 28.04.2026 passed by Respondent No.2-Appellate Authority, whereby the appeal filed by Respondent No.1- Punjab State Civil (hereinafter referred to as ‘PUNSUP’) was y was held exclusively liable for payment of gratuity to Respondent No.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-company submits that with Respondent No.1-PUNSUP on 18.02.2013 and continuously worked under the supervision, control and uptil 31.12.2018. At the time of deployment, gratuity and other statutory liabilities formed part of the and were specifically stipulated to be 6 ......Petitioner CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED .....Respondents filed under Articles is to the order dated 28.04.2026 Appellate Authority, njab State Civil was was held exclusively liable for submits that PUNSUP on 18.02.2013 and continuously worked under the supervision, control and t the time of his deployment, gratuity and other statutory liabilities formed part of the and were specifically stipulated to be SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.06 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19640 reimbursable by was in thereafter initiated proceedings under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The Controlling Authority vide order dated 07.10.2024 held the petitioner payment of gratuity. respondent No.1 neither reimbursed the gratuity amount nor honoured its contractual obligations. Instead, legal notices were issued. both parties preferred appeals. While the petitioner's dismissed on the ground of delay was allowed vide has been filed challenging the aforesaid order. (3) that the Appellate Authority including the admission of Respondent No.4 that he had worked at the premises of Respondent No.1 and performed duties assigned by Respondent No.1, witnesses admitting that attendance of outsourc maintained by (4) (5) Advocate have put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.1 PUNSUP. Appellate Authority is interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdic 19640-2026 (O&M) -2- reimbursable by respondent No.1, w n a contract with regard to prov thereafter initiated proceedings under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The Controlling Authority vide order dated 07.10.2024 held the petitioner-company and Respondent No.1 jointly and severally liable for payment of gratuity. Despite reminders raised by the espondent No.1 neither reimbursed the gratuity amount nor honoured its contractual obligations. Instead, legal notices were issued. both parties preferred appeals. While the petitioner's dismissed on the ground of delay, the appeal filed by Respondent No.1 was allowed vide impugned order dated 28.04.2026. The present petition has been filed challenging the aforesaid order. Learned counsel for the petitioner the Appellate Authority has ignored material evidence on record, including the admission of Respondent No.4 that he had worked at the premises of Respondent No.1 and performed duties assigned by Respondent No.1, as well as the testimony of witnesses admitting that attendance of outsourc maintained by respondent No.1. Notice is issued to respondent No.1 only at this stage. Mr. Ranjit Singh Kalra, Advocate and Ms. vocate have put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.1 PUNSUP. They submit that the impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Authority is well reasoned and does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdic with whom the petitioner compa viding manpower. Respondent No.4 thereafter initiated proceedings under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The Controlling Authority vide order dated 07.10.2024 held the and Respondent No.1 jointly and severally liable for Despite reminders raised by the petitioner-compa espondent No.1 neither reimbursed the gratuity amount nor honoured its contractual obligations. Instead, legal notices were issued. Thereafter, both parties preferred appeals. While the petitioner's appeal was , the appeal filed by Respondent No.1 order dated 28.04.2026. The present petition has been filed challenging the aforesaid order. Learned counsel for the petitioner-company further conten ignored material evidence on record, including the admission of Respondent No.4 that he had worked at the premises of Respondent No.1 and performed duties assigned by as well as the testimony of respondent No.1's own witnesses admitting that attendance of outsourced employees was respondent No.1 only at this stage. Mr. Ranjit Singh Kalra, Advocate and Ms. Mona Yadav, vocate have put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.1 that the impugned order passed by the learned well reasoned and does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. any Respondent No.4 thereafter initiated proceedings under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The Controlling Authority vide order dated 07.10.2024 held the and Respondent No.1 jointly and severally liable for any, espondent No.1 neither reimbursed the gratuity amount nor honoured its Thereafter, appeal was , the appeal filed by Respondent No.1 order dated 28.04.2026. The present petition nds ignored material evidence on record, including the admission of Respondent No.4 that he had worked at the premises of Respondent No.1 and performed duties assigned by espondent No.1's own ed employees was Mona Yadav, vocate have put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.1- that the impugned order passed by the learned well reasoned and does not warrant any SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.06 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19640 (6) learned counsel the record with their able assistance. (7) a finding employer respondent No.1 establ an employee of M/s Gretis India Private Limited (the petitioner compa resignation to the petitioner Appellate Authority discharged his duties at the premises of respondent No.1 under the outsourcing arrangement would not, by itself, make respondent No.1 liable to pay gratuity. (8) demonstrate that the findings recorded by the learned Authority error warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The findings recorded are based upon the on record and cannot be said to be perverse merely because the petitioner same evidence. (9) impugned 19640-2026 (O&M) -3- I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner learned counsel for respondent No.1 the record with their able assistance. The learned Appellate Authority a finding with regard to the payment employer-employee relationship with respondent No.1-PUNSUP could not lished by way of the material on an employee of M/s Gretis India Private Limited (the petitioner any), was drawing salary from resignation to the petitioner-compan Appellate Authority concluded that merely because respondent No.4 discharged his duties at the premises of respondent No.1 under the outsourcing arrangement would not, by itself, make respondent No.1 liable to pay gratuity. Learned counsel for the petitioner nstrate that the findings recorded by the learned Authority suffer from any patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The findings recorded are based upon the on record and cannot be said to be perverse merely because the petitioner-company seeks a different appreciation or interpretation of the same evidence. Consequently, no ground is made out for interference with the impugned order dated 28.04.2026 (Annexure P I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-company and for respondent No.1-PUNSUP and have gone through he learned Appellate Authority in the impugned order recorded of gratuity that the existence of an employee relationship with between respondent No.4 a be proved. On the contrary, it w n record that respondent No.4 was an employee of M/s Gretis India Private Limited (the petitioner ), was drawing salary from it, and had also tendered his ny. In view thereof, the learned that merely because respondent No.4 discharged his duties at the premises of respondent No.1 under the outsourcing arrangement would not, by itself, make respondent No.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner-company has also failed to nstrate that the findings recorded by the learned Appellate suffer from any patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The findings recorded are based upon the evidence available on record and cannot be said to be perverse merely because the seeks a different appreciation or interpretation of the Consequently, no ground is made out for interference with the (Annexure P-10) passed by respondent and and have gone through recorded the existence of an and was was an employee of M/s Gretis India Private Limited (the petitioner- and had also tendered his the learned that merely because respondent No.4 discharged his duties at the premises of respondent No.1 under the outsourcing arrangement would not, by itself, make respondent No.1 has also failed to Appellate suffer from any patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its writ evidence available on record and cannot be said to be perverse merely because the seeks a different appreciation or interpretation of the Consequently, no ground is made out for interference with the espondent SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.06 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19640 No.2- dismissed. (10) of. July 03, 202 SwarnjitS 19640-2026 (O&M) -4- -Appellate Authority and the present writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Civil miscellaneous application pending, if any, is also disposed , 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable and the present writ petition is, accordingly, iscellaneous application pending, if any, is also disposed (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No and the present writ petition is, accordingly, iscellaneous application pending, if any, is also disposed SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.06 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document