CWP-20123 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT (105) SURINDER SINGH PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BATHINDA AND ORS. CORAM: HON'BLE Present: KIRTI SINGH (1) 226 of the Constitution of India, is to the award dated 23.10.2025 (Annexure P (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), whereby the claim of the petition back wages has been dismissed. (2) the petitioner was employed as a Computer Operator by the respondent terminated without holding any enquiry and without payment of retrenchment compensation on 01.11.2012. termination by filing a claim before the Industrial Tribunal. the respondent 20123-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH SURINDER SINGH Versus PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BATHINDA AND CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Mr. Puneet Kumar Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. **** KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL) The challenge in the present writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is to the award dated 23.10.2025 (Annexure P-14) passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), whereby the claim of the petitioner seeking reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages has been dismissed. It has been agitated by the learned counsel the petitioner was employed as a Computer Operator by the respondent-Bank on 01.06.2010. His s terminated without holding any enquiry and without payment of retrenchment compensation on 01.11.2012. termination by filing a claim before the Industrial Tribunal. the respondent-Bank, though did not deny the period of employment of IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-20123-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 07.07.2026 ......Petitioner Versus PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BATHINDA AND .....Respondent MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH , Advocate for the petitioner. present writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is to the award dated 23.10.2025 14) passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), whereby the claim of the er seeking reinstatement with continuity of service and full It has been agitated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was employed as a Computer Operator by the Bank on 01.06.2010. His services were allegedly, however terminated without holding any enquiry and without payment of retrenchment compensation on 01.11.2012. He challenged his termination by filing a claim before the Industrial Tribunal. Thereafter, not deny the period of employment of 6 ......Petitioner PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BATHINDA AND .....Respondents present writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is to the award dated 23.10.2025 14) passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), whereby the claim of the er seeking reinstatement with continuity of service and full the petitioner that the petitioner was employed as a Computer Operator by the , however terminated without holding any enquiry and without payment of He challenged his Thereafter, not deny the period of employment of SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.13 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20123 the servicing evidence in support of this contention, including any outsourcing polic wrongly 07.12.2015. The said award was challenged by the petitioner by filing Civil Writ Petition No. matter was remanded back to the Industrial Tribunal. claim of the petitioner was Bathinda vide order dated 23.10.2025, which present no evidence was led by the petitioner had been engaged through the claim the factum of employment of the workman respondent by the contractually only workman enquiry, or payment of compensation. which is based on an erroneous appreciation of facts, deserves to be set aside. (3) through the record with his able assistance. 20123-2026 (O&M) -2- the petitioner, but claimed to have availed the services ervicing basis for short period and for specific work evidence in support of this contention, including any outsourcing policy, was placed on record. Yet, the claim filed by the petitioner was wrongly dismissed by the Ld. Industrial Tribunal vide award dated 07.12.2015. The said award was challenged by the petitioner by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 6173 of 2016, which was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Industrial Tribunal. claim of the petitioner was again dismissed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda vide order dated 23.10.2025, which present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has no evidence was led by the respondent petitioner had been engaged through he claim of the petitioner was wrongly the factum of employment of the workman respondent-Bank was never disputed by the respondent-Bank to prove that the petitioner contractually only for a specific purpose. workman-petitioner were terminated without any notice, charge enquiry, or payment of compensation. which is based on an erroneous appreciation of facts, deserves to be set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record with his able assistance. petitioner, but claimed to have availed the services on an out for short period and for specific work. However, no evidence in support of this contention, including any outsourcing he claim filed by the petitioner was Industrial Tribunal vide award dated 07.12.2015. The said award was challenged by the petitioner by filing of 2016, which was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Industrial Tribunal. Thereafter the dismissed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda vide order dated 23.10.2025, which is under challenge in the Learned counsel for the petitioner has emphasized tha respondent-Bank to prove that the petitioner had been engaged through out-servicing, on which ground wrongly dismissed. It is submitted that the factum of employment of the workman-petitioner with the was never disputed, nor was any document produced Bank to prove that the petitioner had been engaged specific purpose. Rather, the services of the petitioner were terminated without any notice, charge-sheet, enquiry, or payment of compensation. Therefore, the impugned order, which is based on an erroneous appreciation of facts, deserves to be set ard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record with his able assistance. on an out- However, no evidence in support of this contention, including any outsourcing he claim filed by the petitioner was Industrial Tribunal vide award dated 07.12.2015. The said award was challenged by the petitioner by filing of 2016, which was allowed and the Thereafter the dismissed by the Industrial Tribunal, in the emphasized that to prove that the , on which ground submitted that petitioner with the document produced engaged he services of the sheet, Therefore, the impugned order, which is based on an erroneous appreciation of facts, deserves to be set ard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.13 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20123 (4) the ju Nilgir and o made claima 20123-2026 (O&M) -3- Before proceeding further, a udgment passed by the Hon’ble ri Coop. Marketing Society L others, 2004(3) SCC 514, wh with regard to the employer ant and an employee. Relevant p “xxx 32. Determination of the vexed questions as to whether a contract is a contract of service or contract for service and whether the conc employees are employees of the contractors has never been an easy task. No decision of this Court has laid down any hard and fast rule nor it is possible to do so. The question in each case has to be answered having regard to the fact involved therein. No single test organisation or any other test - factor for determining the jural relationship of employer and employee. 33. There are cases arising on the borderline between what is cle an employer-employee relation and what is clearly the independent entrepreneurial dealing. TESTS: 34. This Court beginning from National Bank Ltd. [1955] 1 L.L.J. 688 : AIR 1955 SC 404 and Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. State of Saurashtra and others [1957] 1 L.L.J. 477 : AIR 1957 SC 264 control test is the prima facie test for determining the relationship of employment. The nature or extent of control required to establish such relationship would vary from business to business and, thus, cannot be given a precise definition. The nature of business for the said purpose is also a relevant factor. Instances are galore there where having regard to conflict in decisions in relation to the similar set of facts, the Parliament has to intervene as, for example, in the case of workers rolling bidis. 35. In a given case it may not be possible to infer that a relationship of employer and employee has come into being only because some pers had been more or less continuously working in a particular premises inasmuch as even in relation thereto the actual nature of work done by them coupled with other circumstances would have a role to play. 36. In V.P. Gopala Rao Vs. Public Prosecutor, [1970] 2 L.L.J. 59 : AIR 1970 SC 66, of fact in each case whether the relationship of master and servant exists between the management and the workmen and there is no abstract a priori test of the work control required for establishing the control of service. A brief resume of the development of law in this point was necessary only for the purpose of showing that it would not be prudent to search for a formula in the nature of a single test for determinin vexed question. a gainful reference can be made e Supreme Court in Workmen Limited Vs. State of Tamil Na herein elaborate observations w employee relationship between portion of the same reads thus:- Determination of the vexed questions as to whether a contract is a contract of service or contract for service and whether the concerned employees are employees of the contractors has never been an easy task. No decision of this Court has laid down any hard and fast rule nor it is possible to do so. The question in each case has to be answered having n. No single test - be it control test, be it has been held to be the determinative factor for determining the jural relationship of employer and employee. There are cases arising on the borderline between what is clearly employee relation and what is clearly the independent This Court beginning from Shivanandan Sharma Vs. Punjab National Bank Ltd. [1955] 1 L.L.J. 688 : AIR 1955 SC 404 and orks Ltd. Vs. State of Saurashtra and others [1957] 1 L.L.J. 477 : AIR 1957 SC 264 observed that supervision and control test is the prima facie test for determining the relationship of employment. The nature or extent of control required to establish such relationship would vary from business to business and, thus, cannot be given a precise definition. The nature of business for the said purpose is also a relevant factor. Instances are galore there where having regard to o the similar set of facts, the Parliament has to intervene as, for example, in the case of workers rolling bidis. In a given case it may not be possible to infer that a relationship of employer and employee has come into being only because some pers had been more or less continuously working in a particular premises inasmuch as even in relation thereto the actual nature of work done by them coupled with other circumstances would have a role to play. V.P. Gopala Rao Vs. Public Prosecutor, Andhra Pradesh [1970] 2 L.L.J. 59 : AIR 1970 SC 66, this Court said that it is a question of fact in each case whether the relationship of master and servant exists between the management and the workmen and there is no abstract a ontrol required for establishing the control of service. A brief resume of the development of law in this point was necessary only for the purpose of showing that it would not be prudent to search for a formula in the nature of a single test for determining the e to n of adu were n a Determination of the vexed questions as to whether a contract is a erned employees are employees of the contractors has never been an easy task. No decision of this Court has laid down any hard and fast rule nor it is possible to do so. The question in each case has to be answered having be it control test, be it has been held to be the determinative factor for determining the jural relationship of employer and employee. arly employee relation and what is clearly the independent Shivanandan Sharma Vs. Punjab National Bank Ltd. [1955] 1 L.L.J. 688 : AIR 1955 SC 404 and orks Ltd. Vs. State of Saurashtra and others observed that supervision and control test is the prima facie test for determining the relationship of employment. The nature or extent of control required to establish such relationship would vary from business to business and, thus, cannot be given a precise definition. The nature of business for the said purpose is also a relevant factor. Instances are galore there where having regard to o the similar set of facts, the Parliament In a given case it may not be possible to infer that a relationship of employer and employee has come into being only because some persons had been more or less continuously working in a particular premises inasmuch as even in relation thereto the actual nature of work done by Andhra Pradesh this Court said that it is a question of fact in each case whether the relationship of master and servant exists between the management and the workmen and there is no abstract a ontrol required for establishing the control of service. A brief resume of the development of law in this point was necessary only for the purpose of showing that it would not be prudent to g the SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.13 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20123 (5) provis Distri reads 20123-2026 (O&M) -4- RELEVANT FACTORS: 37. The control test and the organization test, therefore, are not the only factors which can be said to decisive. With a view of elicit the answer, the court is required to consider several factors which wou bearing on the result : (a) who is appointing authority; (b) who is the pay master; (c) who can dismiss; (d) how long alternative service lasts; e) the extent of control and supervision; (f) the nature of the job, e.g. whether, it is professional or skilled work; (g) nature of establishment; (h) the right to reject. 38. With a view to find out reasonable solution in a problematic case of this nature, what is needed is an integrated approach meaning thereby integration of the relevant tests where as to whether the workman concerned was fully integrated into the employer's concern meaning thereby independent of the concern although attached therewith to some extent. Reference can also be made sions, as made by the Hon’ble S ict Panchayat v. Dahyabhai Am thus:- “xxxx To attract the provisions of Section 25F, one of the condition required is that the workman is employed in any industry for a continuous period which would not be not less than one year. Section 25B of the Act defines continuous service for the purposes of Chapter V Retrenchment". The purport of this Section is that if a workman has put in an uninterrupted service of the esta may be interrupted on account of sickness, authorized leave, an accident, a strike which is not illegal, a lock to any fault on the part of the workman, shall be said to be a service, for that period. Thus the workmen shall be said to be in continuous service for one year i.e., 12 months irrespective of the number of days he has actually worked with interrupted service, permissible under Section 25B. However, the workmen must have been in service during the period, i.e., not only on the date when he actually worked but also on the days he could not work under the circumstances set out in Sub The workmen must be in the employment of the employer concerned days he has actually worked but also on the days on which he has not worked. The import of Sub Section(1) of Section 25B is that the workmen should be in the employment of the employer for the continuous, uninterrupted period for one year except the permissible as mentioned hereinabove. Sub introduces the fiction to the effect that even if the workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of Clause (i) of Section 25 period of one year or six months he shall be deemed to be in continuous service for that period under an employer if he has actually worked for the The control test and the organization test, therefore, are not the only factors which can be said to decisive. With a view of elicit the answer, the court is required to consider several factors which would have a bearing on the result : (a) who is appointing authority; (b) who is the pay master; (c) who can dismiss; (d) how long alternative service lasts; e) the extent of control and supervision; (f) the nature of the job, e.g. whether, it or skilled work; (g) nature of establishment; (h) the right to With a view to find out reasonable solution in a problematic case of this nature, what is needed is an integrated approach meaning thereby integration of the relevant tests wherefor it may be necessary to examine as to whether the workman concerned was fully integrated into the employer's concern meaning thereby independent of the concern although attached therewith to some extent.” e to the explanation of the relev Supreme Court in Surendranag marsinh, 2005(8) SCC 750, wh To attract the provisions of Section 25F, one of the condition required is that the workman is employed in any industry for a continuous period which would not be not less than one year. Section 25B of the Act defines continuous service for the purposes of Chapter V-A "Lay-off and Retrenchment". The purport of this Section is that if a workman has put in an uninterrupted service of the establishment, including the service which may be interrupted on account of sickness, authorized leave, an accident, a strike which is not illegal, a lock-out or cessation of work, that is not due to any fault on the part of the workman, shall be said to be a continuous service, for that period. Thus the workmen shall be said to be in continuous service for one year i.e., 12 months irrespective of the number of days he has actually worked with interrupted service, permissible under kmen must have been in service during the period, i.e., not only on the date when he actually worked but also on the days he could not work under the circumstances set out in Sub-Section (1). The workmen must be in the employment of the employer concerned on the days he has actually worked but also on the days on which he has not worked. The import of Sub Section(1) of Section 25B is that the workmen should be in the employment of the employer for the continuous, uninterrupted period for one year except the period the absence is permissible as mentioned hereinabove. Sub-section (2) of Section 25B introduces the fiction to the effect that even if the workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of Clause (i) of Section 25-B for the ar or six months he shall be deemed to be in continuous service for that period under an employer if he has actually worked for the The control test and the organization test, therefore, are not the only factors which can be said to decisive. With a view of elicit the answer, ld have a bearing on the result : (a) who is appointing authority; (b) who is the pay master; (c) who can dismiss; (d) how long alternative service lasts; e) the extent of control and supervision; (f) the nature of the job, e.g. whether, it or skilled work; (g) nature of establishment; (h) the right to With a view to find out reasonable solution in a problematic case of this nature, what is needed is an integrated approach meaning thereby for it may be necessary to examine as to whether the workman concerned was fully integrated into the employer's concern meaning thereby independent of the concern although vant gar hich To attract the provisions of Section 25F, one of the condition required is that the workman is employed in any industry for a continuous period which would not be not less than one year. Section 25B of the Act off and Retrenchment". The purport of this Section is that if a workman has put in blishment, including the service which may be interrupted on account of sickness, authorized leave, an accident, out or cessation of work, that is not due continuous service, for that period. Thus the workmen shall be said to be in continuous service for one year i.e., 12 months irrespective of the number of days he has actually worked with interrupted service, permissible under kmen must have been in service during the period, i.e., not only on the date when he actually worked but also on the Section (1). on the days he has actually worked but also on the days on which he has not worked. The import of Sub Section(1) of Section 25B is that the workmen should be in the employment of the employer for the continuous, period the absence is section (2) of Section 25B introduces the fiction to the effect that even if the workman is not in B for the ar or six months he shall be deemed to be in continuous service for that period under an employer if he has actually worked for the SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.13 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20123 (6) Bank without any notice, Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence led by the parties, came to the conclusion that prove follo Moreover, the learned Tribunal cross Computer Operator for converting the manual work of the Bank into computerized operations published in any newspaper for the said post letter issued to him claimant had been engaged period till the completion of the work It was therefore that the impugned order dismissing the claims of the petitioner was passed. (7) that impugned award are perverse or contrary to the pleadings and evidence brought on record. 20123-2026 (O&M) -5- days specified in clause (a) and (b) of Sub of Sub-section 2(a) (i), the workmen shall be deemed to be i service for one year if he is employed underground in a mine for 190 days or 240 days in any other case. Provisions of the Section postulate that if the workmen has put in at least 240 days with his employer, immediately prior to the date of retrenchment, he shall be deemed to have served with the employer for a period of one year to get the benefit of Section 25F. It was the claim that the petitioner had Bank on 01.06.2010 and his services were terminated on 01.11.2012, without any notice, charge-sheet, enquiry, or compensation Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence led by the parties, came to the conclusion that the workman did not place on record prove that he had either been appointed by the bank following due process, or that he was Moreover, the learned Tribunal observed that the claimant cross-examination, had contended that Computer Operator for converting the manual work of the Bank into computerized operations; however, published in any newspaper for the said post letter issued to him, was placed on record. Rather, the fact that the claimant had been engaged on an outsourcing basis period till the completion of the work It was therefore that the impugned order dismissing the claims of the petitioner was passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to establish that the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal impugned award are perverse or contrary to the pleadings and evidence brought on record. In the absence of any perversity having been days specified in clause (a) and (b) of Sub-section (2). By the legal fiction 2(a) (i), the workmen shall be deemed to be in continuous service for one year if he is employed underground in a mine for 190 days or 240 days in any other case. Provisions of the Section postulate that if the workmen has put in at least 240 days with his employer, immediately etrenchment, he shall be deemed to have served with the employer for a period of one year to get the benefit of Section 25F.” It was the claim that the petitioner had joined the respondent on 01.06.2010 and his services were terminated on 01.11.2012, sheet, enquiry, or compensation. The Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence led by the parties, came to the did not place on record any document appointed by the bank, that too after he was a regular employee of the bank. observed that the claimant, in his had contended that he was appointed as a Computer Operator for converting the manual work of the Bank into ; however, no proof of any advertisement published in any newspaper for the said post, or of any appointment was placed on record. Rather, the fact that the on an outsourcing basis only for a specific period till the completion of the work could not be duly controverted It was therefore that the impugned order dismissing the claims of the Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to establish learned Tribunal while passing the impugned award are perverse or contrary to the pleadings and evidence In the absence of any perversity having been (2). By the legal fiction n continuous service for one year if he is employed underground in a mine for 190 days or 240 days in any other case. Provisions of the Section postulate that if the workmen has put in at least 240 days with his employer, immediately etrenchment, he shall be deemed to have served with ” the respondent- on 01.06.2010 and his services were terminated on 01.11.2012, The Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence led by the parties, came to the any document to after regular employee of the bank. , in his he was appointed as a Computer Operator for converting the manual work of the Bank into advertisement appointment was placed on record. Rather, the fact that the only for a specific could not be duly controverted. It was therefore that the impugned order dismissing the claims of the Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to establish while passing the impugned award are perverse or contrary to the pleadings and evidence In the absence of any perversity having been SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.13 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20123 pointed out in the award passed by the interference by this Court is made out accordingly, (8) of. July 07, 202 SwarnjitS 20123-2026 (O&M) -6- pointed out in the award passed by the interference by this Court is made out accordingly, dismissed in limine. Civil miscellaneous application pending, if any, is also disposed 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable pointed out in the award passed by the learned Tribunal, no ground for interference by this Court is made out and the present writ petition is, iscellaneous application pending, if any, is also disposed (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No o ground for and the present writ petition is, iscellaneous application pending, if any, is also disposed SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.13 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document