The burden of proof lies on the workman to establish an employer-employee relationship, and failure to provide substantial evidence results in dismissal of claims under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Harsh Bunger, J. (Oral)

Petitioner (Malkit Singh) has filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the impugned Award dated 10.08.2023 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.1; whereby, the reference has been decided against him.

2. Briefly, petitioner (Malkit Singh) has raised an industrial dispute, which was referred for adjudication to the learned Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda (here-in-after referred to as 'the Tribunal below') under Section 10 (1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the 1947 Act').

3. In the claim petition, petitioner claimed that he served as Beldar with the respondents for one year on permanent basis w.e.f 13.02.1995 on wages of Rs.750/- - Rs.1350/-. Petitioner claimed that his services were terminated on 15.02.1996 without any notice, charge- sheet, enquiry or compensation. Petitioner further claimed that juniors to him were retained in service and even fresh hands had been appointed, therefore, the termination of services of the petitioner-workman was illegal, unjustified and against the provisions of the 1947 Act.

4. The afore-stated claim of the petitioner-workman was opposed by the respondent-management by submitting its reply wherein it was inter-alia stated that no such worker worked as Beldar as claimed.

5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-

"1. Whether there exists relationship of workman and employer between the parties? (OPW)

2. If issue No.1 is proved, then as to whether workman has completed his 240 days in service in the last preceding calendar year? (OPW)

3. Whether the claim of workman was false and baseless and as such was not maintainable? (OPM)

4. Relief."

6. Petitioner, in support of his claim, examined himself as WW-1 and exhibited one document as Ex. W-1 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, no evidence was led by respondent-management.

7. Upon appreciating the material/evidence available on record, the Tribunal below rejected the claim of the petitioner-workman and answered the reference against the petitioner-workman vide impugned Award dated 10.08.2023 (Annexure P-3).

8. In the aforementioned circumstances, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition before this Court.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned Award dated 10.08.2023 (Annexure P-3).

10. A perusal of the paperbook would manifest that the respondent-management had disputed the employee-employer relationship between the petitioner-workman and respondent-management.

11. In Workmen of Nilgiri Coop. Marketing Society Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu and others 2004(3) SCC 514, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that it is for the workman to have proved the existence of employer-employee relationship between the parties.

12. In the instant case, the Tribunal below returned the following findings:-

"Issue No.1

8. Onus to prove this issue was upon the workman. Since the relationship of employee and employer is denied by the respondents, therefore the workman was to lead evidence in affirmative. In order to discharge the onus, the workman examined himself as WW-1 and deposed the facts vide his affidavit Exh. WW-1/A and thereafter one document was produced on record as Exh. WW-1, besides document Exh. W-1, the workman has not produced on record any other document to prove the relationship of employee and employer between the parties. No appointment letter is claimed to be issued nor it i