CWP No. 21514 of 2015 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (223) CWP No. 21514 of 2015 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.07.2026 Sunita Rani .....Petitioner Versus Industrial Tribunal, Patiala and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Rajesh Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Aakanksha Gupta, AAG, Punjab. **** KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL) 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 17.11.2014 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No. 1, whereby the claim of the petitioner-workman for reinstatement, has been declined. 2. The brief facts of the present case are that petitioner Sunita Rani raised an industrial dispute by serving a demand notice on 30.11.2010, asserting that she had been engaged by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 through the Employment Exchange as a Safai Sewika. She joined her duty on 01.01.1995 and continuously worked till 27.11.2010. It is further the case of the petitioner that after rendering more than fifteen years of continuous service, her services were terminated illegally without conducting any enquiry, issuance of any notice or charge-sheet, and without payment of compensation. During her employment, she was paid a monthly salary of Rs. 300/- per month, which was much below the prescribed wages. The GURPREET SINGH 2026.07.24 13:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 21514 of 2015 (O&M) -2- petitioner further alleged that the respondents threatened her with dire consequences whenever she raised her voice. The petitioner had also submitted representations to the higher authorities seeking regularization of her services. The petitioner further asserted that the post continued to remain vacant even after her termination, and she was not paid wages for the last four months of her service. The petitioner also claimed that she had completed more than 240 days of service in the preceding year and, therefore, her termination was illegal and that she was entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. 3. After failure of the conciliation proceedings, the industrial dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Patiala, where the petitioner filed her statement of claim dated 23.04.2011. The respondents contested the claim by filing a written statement dated 12.03.2012. Thereafter, issues were framed by the learned Industrial Tribunal on 08.8.2012. Subsequently, vide award dated 17.11.2014 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, the reference was decided in favour of the respondents and it was held that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief. Aggrieved by the said award, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal has committed a patent illegality in passing the impugned award dated 17.11.2014, whereby the claim of the petitioner has been declined. It is further submitted that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 themselves admitted that the petitioner worked as a Safai Sewika in Government Elementary School, Alipur Araian, from 01.01.1995 till 27.11.2010. Yet, despite having rendered continuous service for more than one year, the petitioner was retrenched by the employer without compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is further argued that GURPREET SINGH 2026.07.24 13:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 21514 of 2015 (O&M) -3- even after the filing of an application on behalf of the petitioner for summoning the relevant records from the respondents, the same was not produced, inspite of which adverse inference was not drawn against the management. It is contended that it was the specific stand of the petitioner that she was engaged through employment exchange, and that she was paid wages out of Government Treasury. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner obtained information under the Right to Information Act showing that several part-time Safai Sewikas/Sweepers in District Patiala had been regularized. Therefore, it could not be held that there was no sanctioned post of Sweeper in the Government Elementary School where the petitioner was working. Learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance on Annexure P-6, submits that during the pendency of the present petition, petitioner had moved an application dated 02.6.2023 seeking employment at the Government Elementary School, Alipur Arian, Block Patiala, pursuant to whereof, she has joined services as Mid-day Meal Cook- cum-Helper w.e.f. 02.6.2023. It is submitted that in view of the subsequent development, the controversy now survives only with respect to continuity of service, back wages and consideration of the petitioner's claim for regularization. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned award dated 17.11.2014, be set aside. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the present petition. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner was engaged as a Safai Sewak purely on a temporary basis. It is further submitted that there was no sanctioned post of Sweeper or Part-Time Sweeper in the said school at the relevant time. It is also submitted that no advertisement or public notice was issued inviting applications for filling up any vacant post of Sweeper or Part- Time Sweeper in the department. Furthermore, no appointment letter was GURPREET SINGH 2026.07.24 13:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 21514 of 2015 (O&M) -4- ever issued in favour of the petitioner. It is further submitted that no terms and conditions governing the alleged engagement were prescribed, nor was any written contract executed or signed between the parties. It has also been contended that the remuneration paid to the petitioner was not disbursed from Government funds, but was contributed by the teachers of the school from their personal resources. It is further submitted that the petitioner had failed to substantiate the claim for back wages, continuity of service and regularization of service before the learned Tribunal. Therefore, it is prayed the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. 7. A perusal of the impugned award dated 17.11.2014 reveals that after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties, the learned Industrial Tribunal recorded a categorical finding that the petitioner failed to establish that she was an employee of the respondents. Rather, it was the pleaded case of the respondents that the salary of Rs. 300/- per month was being paid to the petitioner after joint calculations of all the school teachers, and that there was no sanctioned post of Sweeper in the respondent-School, which submission was not effectively refuted by the petitioner. In the absence of any evidence on record to prove otherwise, it was held by the learned Tribunal that the petitioner was neither a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, nor had she been able to prove the relationship of employer and employee. Therefore, she was held not entitled to the relief being claimed by her. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal observed that in case a sanctioned post of Safai Sewika would be created, the petitioner shall be engaged on that post on priority basis in GURPREET SINGH 2026.07.24 13:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 21514 of 2015 (O&M) -5- compliance to the relevant provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and upon the petitioner fulfilling the statutory requirements for the said post. The learned Tribunal, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, thus rightly upheld the order of termination dated 28.11.2010. 8. This Court is of the considered view that the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal concerned are based on a proper appreciation of the material on record. 9. 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 jurisdictional error, violation of principles of natural justice or patent illegality, warranting any interference by this Court. 10. Moreover, it has also been brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has been granted employment as Mid-day Meal Cook- cum-Helper w.e.f. 02.6.2023. It has simultaneously been highlighted that the petitioner had given a categoric undertaking on affidavit (Annexure P-6) that she would withdraw all the cases filed against her by the management. 11. Consequently, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same is hereby dismissed. 12. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE July 21st, 2026 Gurpreet Singh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No GURPREET SINGH 2026.07.24 13:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh