The onus of proof lies on the party contending the existence of a fact, and expert evidence is admissible to assist the court in forming its own opinion.

Mukta Gupta, J.

1. By the present petition the Petitioner seeks setting aside of the award dated 30th January, 2010 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court in an industrial dispute ID No. 156/2003 whereby the learned Labour Court held that the workman has failed to prove his case and refused to grant him any relief. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the learned labour court has failed to appreciate that the services of the workman were terminated and that he did not leave his services of his own free will. The Petitioner who had a permanent job and was employed for over four years would not whimsically tender his resignation and thereafter within a month issue a demand notice to the management seeking reinstatement. The learned Presiding officer erred in relying upon the testimony of Kamal Kant Khandelwal (MW3) despite the fact that he has not demonstrated his expertise in handwriting and also in his cross-examination admitted that he cannot not say whether any other person can write such type of handwriting/signature. Further the Petitioner is illiterate and can sign in Hindi and used to sign the 'paid wages register' once in a month. Learned counsel contends that if any doubt exists in an industrial adjudication its benefit must be given to the weaker party, that is, the workman. Reliance is placed on The K.C.P. Employees' Association, Madras Vs. The Management of K.C.P. Ltd., Madras and Others, AIR 1978 SC 474 in support of this contention. On one hand the Respondent contends that there was no question of payment of any retrenchment compensation as the Petitioner had left his job on his own and on the other hand the records of Respondent indicate a full and final settlement which reflects the payment of Rs. 3,000/- as service compensation. The alleged payment of Rs. 6,000/- has been made in cash and no document or ledger entries were produced to indicate the withdrawal of said amount from the bank for the purpose of such payment. It is lastly contended that the workman never sought correction/corrigendum in the reference from the appropriate government before the labour court that he was a permanent employee of Respondent No. 1 from 1999 till his termination on 19th March, 2002. Further, the written statement of Respondents has submitted that the business of Bakshi Transport Service was amalgamated after 31st March, 2002 into Bakshi Transport Services Pvt. Ltd. Hence, it is impleaded as necessary party in the present petition which the High Court can do suo moto or on an application of a party to writ or at the instance of a proper party. Reliance is placed on Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia Vs. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, AIR 1963 SC 786 and Razia Begum Vs. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum and Others, AIR 1958 SC 886. The Respondents have also stated that on 2nd May, 2007 Petitioner was asked to join back which the workman refused. This clearly indicates that the Management of Bakshi Transport Services and Bakshi Transport Services Pvt. Ltd. are same, otherwise no offer to rejoin could be made by Respondents when according to Respondents the business of Bakshi Transport Service was wound up on 31st March, 2002.

2. Per contra learned counsel for the Respondents contends that the Petitioner did not implead Sh. G.S. Sawhney, K.S. Sawhney and M/s. Bakshi Transport Service Pvt. Ltd as Respondents before the learned Labour Court where the reference of the industrial dispute was made only against Respondent No. 1. Thus, the Petitioner cannot implead them as parties in the present petition, which would be beyond the term of reference and enlarging the scope of dispute as per his own whims and fancies. The services of the Petitioner were never terminated by the Respondents rather the workman himself had worked only upto 28th February, 2002 leaving the employment of his own accord, stating that he would not serve the management any longer, his dues and claims were settled and he received earned