M. Jagannadha Rao, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal preferred TO against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 1202/96 dated 25. 3. 96, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant-workman and refusing to interfere with the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal on 2. 1. 96.

( 2 ) THE writ petitioner Shri Madho Ram claimed, in his statement before the Tribunal that he was employed with M/s Sandhu Traders (employers) as Machineman for I year and was drawing a salary of Rs. 600 p. m. He claimed that his services were terminated on 24. 8. 81 when he demanded compensation and wages during the period when he was injured in his left-hand, and that no prior notice was given. He also claimed that-he had sent a registered notice on 16. 9. 81 to the employers.

( 3 ) IN their written statement, the employers alleged that the workman was not in their employment and that there was no relationship of employer and workman and that, in fact, the workman did not receive any injury. Other allegations were also denied.

( 4 ) IN his rejoinder, the workman denied the allegations made by the employers.

( 5 ) THE parties adduced oral and documentary evidence before the Tribunal which framed the following points:

(I) Whether relationship -of employer and employee exists in the present case? If not, its effect (onus on petitioner/workman ). (ii) As in the reference (onus on petitioner/workman) i. e. whether the services of Sh. Madho Ram have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably, if no, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?

( 6 ) THE Tribunal held on the first point, on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence that the workman failed to prove that any relationship of master and servant existed between the parties. It noticed that the workman in his evidence as WW 1 stated that he was in the employment of this employer front January,1981, that in his notice he gave the version that he was employed with this management from 1977, that before the Compensation Commissioner he stated that when his services were terminated (i. e. on 24. 8. 81) he had put in only 6 or 7 months service. He had stated in another case which he filed in 1981 against M/s Salwan Furniture that he was unemployed. The Tribunal also pointed out that the workman admitted that he had stated before the Compensation Commissioner that he had not incurred any expenses for his medical treatment, that he did not obtain any medical treatment and did not know the name of the doctor. Because of the conflicting evidence of the workman, the Tribunal held that the workman had not proved that there was a relationship of employer and employee between the parties. Thereafter, on Point (ii) the Tribunal held that the workman was not entitled to any relief because of the above finding on Point (i ). Award was passed on 2. 1. 96 accordingly.

( 7 ) BEFORE the learned Single Judge, it was argued for the workman that, in view of the language of the reference (see below) the Tribunal was not competent to go into the question of relationship of master and servant between the parties. The learned Single Judge rejected the contention and held that the Tribunal could go into the said question as it went to the root of the matter.

( 8 ) IN this appeal, it is again contended by the learned counsel for the workman that the reference made by the Government implied the existence of relationship of master and servant. The Government in the reference dated 24. 6. 82 framed the question as follows:

"whether the services of Shri Madho Ram have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably, if so, what relief is he entitled to and what directions are necessary in this respect?"

( 9 ) THE point that therefore arises for consideration in this appeal is: Whether upon a reference under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Tribunal, while adjudicating the dispute under Section 10 (4) and deciding matters "incidental thereto", c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document