CWP No. 21740 of 2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (116) CWP No. 21740 of 2026 Date of Decision: 20.07.2026 District Food and Supply Controller, Karnal .....Petitioner Versus Seeta Ram and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Ms. Saumya Ahluwalia, Sr. 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 dated 16.12.2025 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Panipat (respondent No. 2), whereby the claim of respondent No.1 was allowed and the petitioner was directed to reinstate respondent No.1 in service with continuity of service along with 50% back wages w.e.f. 20.5.2019. 2. The brief facts relevant for the disposal of the present writ petition are that respondent No.1 claimed that he was engaged as a PR Chowkidar with the petitioner-department w.e.f. January, 1999. It was claimed by the workman before the Tribunal that his services were terminated on 31.12.2007, however, he was reinstated after some gap. Thereafter, the workman was allegedly again terminated on 01.02.2019, constraining him to approach respondent No.2, by filing a claim petition, ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.07.30 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP No. 21740 of 2026 -2- seeking reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages for the enforced unemployed period w.e.f. May 1999. The petitioner-department contested the claim by filing a written statement. Vide award dated 31.8.2022 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Panipat, the claim filed by respondent No. 1 was accepted and he was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service along with 50% back wages w.e.f. 20.5.2019. The petitioner-department challenged the said award by filing CWP No. 170 of 2024 before this Court. Vide order dated 22.05.2025, passed by this Court, the award (supra) was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the learned Labour Court for fresh adjudication on the issue as to whether a relationship of master and servant existed between the parties. Subsequently, vide the impugned award dated 16.12.2025, respondent No.2 once again allowed the claim of respondent No.1. Hence, the present petition by the petitioner-department. 3. Learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned award dated 16.12.2025 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat, is illegal and suffers from perversity, inasmuch as the learned Tribunal has directed reinstatement of respondent No.1 with continuity of service along with 50% back wages despite the respondent-workman having failed to establish the existence of relationship of master and servant between the parties. It is further submitted that the appointment of respondent No.1 was purely on contractual basis, and that he has not worked more than 90 days in one financial year. It is further submitted that there is no evidence on record including the attendance, salary slip or any other documentary proof which could be relied upon by respondent No.1 in support of his claim. Learned counsel further submits that as per the letter No. 6/47/98-1GS-1 dated 01.02.1999 issued by ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.07.30 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP No. 21740 of 2026 -3- the Government of Haryana, all the departments were instructed that the appointments of contractual employees would be made via private agencies/ contractors, after seeking concurrence of the Finance Department, Haryana. It is submitted that respondent No.1 had failed to prove that he was engaged in services after taking the due approval as envisaged in the above letter. Furthermore, another policy was issued by the Government of Haryana vide No. 43/5/2001-IGSI dated 01.09.2006 (Annexure P-5) for outsourcing of services/activities of contractual workers through service providers. Subsequently, the said policy was amended by the Government of Haryana vide No. 43/5/2001-IGSI dated 16.2.2009. After the said amended policy, the Head Office of Food and Supplies Department, Haryana issued directions to all the DFSCs in the State of Haryana vide letter dated 22.05.2009 (Annexure P-7) that where no regular post existed, the department would hire a placement agency for watch and ward service/PR Chowkidars, and that no person will be hired/engaged directly by the department. In compliance thereof, the department had engaged M/s S.M. Enterprises as service provider from 01.06.2016 to 30.11.2020. Therefore, there existed no direct relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and respondent No.1. She further contends that the learned Labour Court also failed to appreciate that the attendance records, wage records, EPF records and reports submitted by the service providers concerned, which categorically establish that the name of respondent No.1 did not figure in the attendance reports or EPF returns of the service provider during the relevant period. It is also submitted that there there is no finding in the impugned award with regard to completion of 240 days of continuous service by respondent No. 1 under the petitioner-department. Thus, the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.07.30 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP No. 21740 of 2026 -4- ‘the Act’) are not attracted in the present case. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned award be quashed and set aside. 4. I have heard the learned State counsel and have gone through the record. 5. Admittedly, vide order dated 22.5.2025 passed by this Court, the matter was remanded back to the Labour Court to decide upon the issue fresh that whether the master and servant relationship existed between the petitioner-department and respondent No.1. Pursuant thereto, the Labour Court gave findings in respect thereof in the impugned award dated 16.12.2025, observing that there was implied admission of employment in the written statement filed by the petitioner-department, insofar as it was stated therein that respondent No.1 was initially appointed as a PR Chowkidar on contract basis by the Inspector PR Centre of the office of DC, Karnal subject to requirement of work. It was further observed that although the initial appointment of the respondent-workman was for 89 days, but in para No.2 of the written statement, it has been stated that the respondent- workman was subsequently retained as PR Chowkidar in the office, albeit without taking any concurrence of the FD. Further, though in para No.3 of reply on merits, it had been stated that the contractual employees, as per the letter of Government of Haryana dated 01.2.1999, were to be engaged via private agencies/contractor, however, in the entire written statement, no details of any contractor had been mentioned. Learned Labour Court also observed that although in the affidavits filed on behalf of the petitioner- department in evidence, it had been stated that name of the workman was not included in the attendance report submitted by the Inspector Food and Supplies, Nissing and Manpower Contractor and M/s SM Enterprises, ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.07.30 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP No. 21740 of 2026 -5- Kaithal for the months of December 2018 to January 2019, however, the petitioner-department had failed to examine the said contractors in its evidence. The fact that even the witnesses MW-1 and MW-2, examined by the petitioner-department, had no knowledge about the case or as to the time period when the respondent-workman worked with the department, was taken into consideration. Thus, after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties, and the departmental policies, the learned Industrial Tribunal recorded a categorical finding that there existed a relationship of master and servant between the petitioner and respondent No.1. 6. As regards the further plea that the workman was never engaged for a period exceeding 89 days at a stretch, it is by now well settled and has been repeatedly reiterated by this Court, that engaging a workman for successive spells of 89 days each, with artificial breaks and the manipulation of the names of the workman or his father's name in the muster roll, is a device resorted to only defeat the rigour of Section 25B of the Act, and therefore amounts to an unfair labour practice. 7. Trite to say that once the workman discharges the initial burden of showing continuous engagement, the onus shifts to the employer to establish, through positive documentary evidence such as muster rolls, attendance registers and wage records, that the workman did not in fact complete 240 days of service in the year preceding his termination. In the case at hand, the petitioner department has, at no stage, discharged this onus; on the contrary, it failed to produce a single document, or examine the contractor on whom it seeks to place reliance. The Labour Court was, therefore, justified in holding that the workman had completed more than 240 days of continuous service in the preceding twelve calendar months, and ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.07.30 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP No. 21740 of 2026 -6- that his services were terminated in violation of Section 25F of the Act, without notice and without payment of retrenchment compensation. 8. In these circumstances, no ground is made out warranting interference with the impugned award dated 16.12.2025. Consequently, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same is hereby dismissed. 9. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE July 20th, 2026 Ithlesh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.07.30 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment