CWP-18753-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 114 CWP-18753-2026 Date of Decision: 01.07.2026 M/S TRANSOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. ......Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Vikas Kumar Dhariwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Saumya Ahluwalia, Sr. DAG, Haryana. **** KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL) 1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the order dated 01.04.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Commissioner under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, Rohtak, whereby the deceased Devender was held to be an employee/workman of the petitioner and liability for payment of compensation was thus fastened upon the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite there being no employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and the deceased, which could be substantiated by way of any appointment letter, wage record, attendance register, ESI/PF record or any other employment document on record, the impugned order was passed. Infact, the claimants had even admitted that no documentary proof of such employment was available with them. Moreover, the testimony of PW-4 Narender Kumar was also inconsistent regarding his role and the labour arrangement, which fact was also overlooked before fastening liability upon the petitioner. On the contrary, the evidence showed that multiple transport/logistic entities were operating at the premises and that the loading/unloading work was supervised by officials RITIKA 2026.07.06 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP-18753-2026 -2- of SFS Global Ltd. and Tata Consumer Products Limited, and not by the petitioner. Learned counsel further contends that the learned Commissioner failed to consider the material medical evidence which was insufficient to establish a nexus between the alleged employment and the death. Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned order suffers from non-appreciation of material evidence and deserves to be set aside. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner- company had engaged one Narender Kumar for carrying out loading and unloading work for the last 7–10 years and made payments to him, which was then disbursed by him to the labourers, which fact stood admitted by the petitioner. Moreover, it was upon due appreciation of the evidence on record that the learned Commissioner, vide the impugned order dated 01.04.2026, held that the deceased was not an employee of respondent No. 4 and that no accident had occurred within its factory premises. The learned Commissioner found that the deceased was engaged through the petitioner- company, which had been entrusted with the loading and unloading work by Tata Consumer Products Limited (TCPL) under the agreement dated 01.04.2022, as per which, the petitioner-company was responsible for engaging workmen, while handling charges were to be borne by the transporter as part of the freight charges. This arrangement was corroborated by the witness of the petitioner-company and the payment vouchers evidencing payments made by the transporter to contractor Narender Kumar. 4. Learned State Counsel further submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner is perfectly valid. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State counsel and have gone through the record with their able assistance. RITIKA 2026.07.06 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP-18753-2026 -3- 6. The material on record establishes that the petitioner-company had been entrusted with the loading and unloading work by Tata Consumer Products Limited (TCPL) under the agreement dated 01.04.2022, whereunder the responsibility of engaging the workmen rested upon the petitioner- company. Therefore, the relationship of an employer-employee stood established not between the deceased and respondent No.4, but between the deceased and the petitioner-company. It was thus that the liability of compensation was fastened 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also failed to demonstrate that the findings recorded by the learned Commissioner suffer from any patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The findings recorded by the learned Commissioner are based upon the evidence available on record and cannot be said to be perverse merely because the petitioner seeks a different appreciation or interpretation of the same evidence. 8. Consequently, no ground is made out for interference with the impugned order dated 01.04.2026 passed by the learned Commissioner under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923. The impugned order warrants no interference at the hands of this Court and the present writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 9. Civil Miscellaneous application pending, if any, is also disposed of. (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE July 01, 2026 Ritika Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No RITIKA 2026.07.06 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh