CWP No. 25336 of 2022 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (241) CWP No. 25336 of 2022 Date of Decision: 16.07.2026 Neelam .....Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, .....Respondents Gurgaon and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Deepak Sonak, Advocate and Ms. Riya Kangra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Chirag Wadhwa, DAG, Haryana. **** KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL) 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the order 15.7.2022 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No. 1, whereby the application filed by the petitioner-workman for summoning of the record through the official witness, has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had raised an industrial dispute against her illegal termination from service. During the pendency of the proceedings before the learned Labour Court, the petitioner moved an application for summoning of the official witness along with the relevant records maintained by the respondent-management, which was allowed by the learned Labour Court. Pursuant to the said order, an official of the respondent management appeared before the learned Labour Court, however, he did not bring the attendance register, believing that the workman was the contractor. Therefore, the petitioner was GURPREET SINGH 2026.07.21 09:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 25336 of 2022 -2- compelled to file a second application, requiring the respondent- management to produce the entire record and documents regarding the petitioner’ employment/service, as maintained by respondent-management, which are relevant for the purpose of adjudicating the dispute. However, vide impugned order dated 15.7.2022, the said application was wrongly dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the documents sought to be produced are material and necessary for effective adjudication of the dispute pending before the learned Labour Court. It is further submitted that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court passed in CWP No. 25239 of 2022 titled as Babu Lal versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court and others, decided on 29.10.2025 and the connected matter, wherein an identical order dated 15.07.2022 passed by the learned Labour Court was set aside and the application for summoning the management record was allowed. It is, therefore, prayed that the present writ petition be allowed in the same terms. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the present petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 5. The preliminary issue to be decided in an industrial dispute is with respect to existence of an employer-employee relationship, and the service of a workman, which can be effectively adjudicated only when the documents, as sought by the petitioner in the instant case, are brought before learned Tribunal concerned. 6. Reference herein can be made to the order passed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 25239 of 2022 titled as Babu Lal GURPREET SINGH 2026.07.21 09:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 25336 of 2022 -3- versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and others, decided on 29.10.2025, along with connected case, wherein while dealing with an identical order dated 15.07.2022 passed by the learned Labour Court, it was opined that under circumstances like the present case, the learned Labour Court ought not to have taken narrow view in declining the application for summoning the relevant records; and consequently, set aside the impugned order while directing the Labour Court to summon the concerned official of the respondent-management along with the requisite records. 7. Learned State counsel is unable to distinguish the facts of the present case from those involved in CWP No. 25239 of 2022 filed by a similarly placed workman. Consequently, the impugned order dated 15.7.2022 cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside in terms of the aforesaid judgment. 8. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 15.7.2022 (Annexure P-3) is set aside, and the application annexed as Annexure P-2, preferred by the petitioner is allowed. 9. The learned Tribunal concerned is directed to summon witness of the respondents-management, for production of records/documents, as sought by the petitioner through the aforesaid application, with an advance notice to the petitioner. 10. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE July 16th, 2026 Gurpreet Singh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No GURPREET SINGH 2026.07.21 09:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh