ARCHANA ARORA 2025.03.25 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13090 of 2020 (O&M) 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while filing the claim petition, the respondent No.3 & 4 outsourcing agencies were also impleaded as a party, but the Labour Court, even while holding that the respondent No.2 Kurukshetra Development Board will not be responsible for the employment of the petitioner, still, no relief has been given even against the respondent No.3 & 4 outsourcing agency, which award is arbitrary and illegal. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that once the respondent No.3 & 4 outsourcing agencies were made a party in the claim petition and evidence had come on record that the petitioner(s) were employed with respondent No.2 through the respondent No. 3 & 4 outsourcing agency, the contractor should have been made liable so as to grant the relief claimed by petitioner which relief has not been granted by the Labour court. 4. No one appears on behalf of the respondents. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record of the case with his able assistance. 6. Once, the finding has been recorded by the Labour Court vide its award dated 30.09.2019 (Annexure P-10) that petitioner(s) were working through the respondent No.3 & 4 outsourcing agency with the respondent No.2 Kurukshetra Development Board, hence, there was no master and servant relationship between the petitioner(s) and respondent No.2 Kurukshetra Development Board, so as to grant the relief claimed against the said respondent No.2, no relief could have been granted against respondent No.2 but the claim of the ARCHANA ARORA 2025.03.25 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13090 of 2020 (O&M) 3 petitioner(s) should have been considered by the Labour Court qua the respondent No.3 & 4 outsourcing agency which were also made a party to the said claim petition. 7. Once, the claim was raised by the petitioner that their services have been wrongfully terminated, the said dispute should have been decided qua the contractor, the same has not been done by the Labour Court while passing the impugned order. Hence, as no relief has been given to the petitioner(s) even qua the respondent No.3 & 4 outsourcing agencies, by upholding the findings recorded by the tribunal that the petitioner(s) were not the employees of respondent No.2 Kurukshetra Development Board, the matter is remanded back to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala to decide upon the issue that whether the petitioner(s) are entitled for any benefit/relief against the contractor who were party to the claim petition. 8. Let the parties appear before the Labour Court to decide the claim of the petitioner (s) with regard to the violations of provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 qua the outsourcing agency/contractor. 9. Pending application(s) if any, shall also stand disposed of. 10. A photocopy of this order be placed on files of other connected cases. ( HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI ) JUDGE March 20, 2025 archana Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No ARCHANA ARORA 2025.03.25 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document