JUDGMENT

Harsh Bunger, J. (Oral)

Petitioner (Parkash Chand) has filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari/mandamus for quashing the impugned award dated 12.12.2019 (Annexure P-1); whereby, the reference under Section 10 (1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (here-in-after referred to as 'the Act, 1947') has been answered against him.

2. Briefly, the petitioner herein, raised an Industrial Dispute, wherein it was claimed that he was appointed as Fitter by respondent No.2-(Manager, M/s Medium Packing Private Limited, Kila No.16, Near CRPF Camp, Khevra Road, Bahalgarh, District Sonepat) in the month of March-2013 against monthly salary of Rs.7000/-. Petitioner claimed that he was discharging his duties till 26.06.2014 and his work and conduct had remained good throughout during the tenure of his service. It is the case of the petitioner that on account of filing a complaint by the Workers' Union against the respondent-Management before the Labour Officer, Circle-II, Sonepat on 29.05.2014, the respondent-Management illegally terminated the services of the petitioner without giving him any notice or pay in lieu thereof and retrenchment compensation, which is in violation of Section 25 -F of the Act, 1947; accordingly, the petitioner claimed that he is entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages along with his withheld salary for the month of April-2014. Upon reference being made to the learned Tribunal, the claim petition was filed, which was contested by the respondent-Management, wherein the Management outrightly denied that there was any relationship of employer and employee between the Management and the petitioner. It was categorically pleaded that the petitioner never worked under respondent No.2 (Manager, M/s Medium Packing Private Limited).

3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 12.04.2017 :-

(1) Whether the termination of services of workman Sh. Parkash Chand is legal and valid. If not so, to what relief, the workman is entitled? OPW

(2) Whether there exists a relationship of employer and employee between the parties? OPM

(3) Relief

4. Before the learned Tribunal, the petitioner appeared as WW-1 and also examined one Satbir Singh as WW-2, apart from leading documentary evidence. On the other hand, the Management examined one Rajpal Khanna, Manager as MW-1 and also led documentary evidence.

5. On the basis of material available on the record, the learned Tribunal vide impugned award dated 12.12.2019 returned the finding that the petitioner had failed to discharge his onus to prove the existence of relationship of employer and employee. A further finding was returned that it has been established on record that the petitioner had never worked with respondent No.2-Management. Accordingly, the reference of the Industrial Dispute was answered against the petitioner herein, vide award dated 12.12.2019 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat, by holding as under :-

"9. Before seeking relief under the Act, the claimant was liable to prove that their existed relationship of employee and employer between him and the respondent however, he failed to produce any appointment letter, pay slip or any other document, which could have proved the relationship of employee and employer between the parties, if any. As WW-1, the claimant admitted during his cross-examination that he had no proof regarding his working with the respondent and payment of salary by the respondent. He further admitted that