CWP-11614-2017 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (226) CWP-11614-2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.07.2026 RAM PARVESH .....Petitioner Versus INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, PANIPAT AND ANR. ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Sukhdeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate and Mr. Arnav Mittal, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1) This petition impugns the award dated 15.12.2016 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat in Reference No. 34 of 2013, whereby the reference made at the instance of the petitioner-workman was decided against him. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed by the respondent-management as Peon-cum-Chowkidar with effect from 01.01.2007 and worked continuously till 18.05.2012, drawing wages of Rs. 4,910/- per month. It is his case that his services were dispensed with on 19.05.2012 without following the due procedure prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that he had completed more than 240 days of continuous service, and was accordingly entitled to protection under the relevant provisions of the Act, which was wrongly denied to him by way of the impugned award. 3) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-management SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.27 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11614-2017 (O&M) -2- submits that the petitioner was never its direct employee; but was in fact, an employee of Gangotri Security Agency, Regd., which had deputed him to work at the respondent-college. It is further submitted that the observations made by the learned Labour Court are based on the correct appreciation of facts and therefore warrant no interference. 4) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5) A perusal of the case record reveals that on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence led by the parties, the Labour Court returned a finding that the petitioner had been engaged through Gangotri Security Agency, and not directly by the respondent-college. This observation was based on documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-7 and Mark-A, including the application form submitted by the petitioner to the security agency for seeking employment (Ex.R-2), the letter written by the security agency to the respondent-college regarding providing a night-shift chowkidar (Ex.R- 1); and the bills raised by the security agency upon the respondent-college for the petitioner's wages (Ex.R-6). It is also significant that the petitioner, during his cross-examination, admitted that Ex.R-2 (application) had in fact been submitted by him to Gangotri Security Agency, and that the respondent-college never issued any appointment letter to him. 6) Therefore, the Labour Court, relying upon the position of law as explained in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Workmen of Nilgiri Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2004 LLR 351, concluded that the petitioner had failed to discharge the burden of proving that he was a direct employee of the respondent- college, and that the evidence on record instead established that he was an employee of Gangotri Security Agency during the relevant period. It was therefore that the relief sought was denied in favour of the petitioner- SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.27 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11614-2017 (O&M) -3- workman. 7) Learned counsel for the petitioner has been unable to point out any perversity or illegality in the aforesaid finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court. The finding is based upon a proper appreciation of the material on record, including the petitioner's own admissions in cross- examination, and does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 8) It is well settled that this court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, does not sit as a court of appeal over the findings of fact recorded by a Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal, and interference is warranted only where such findings are shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, or arrived at by ignoring material evidence on record. No such infirmity has been demonstrated in the present case. 9) For the reasons recorded above, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE 22.07.2026 SwarnjitS Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.27 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document