G.S. Sandhawalia, J. - (1.) THE challenge, in the present writ petition, is to the award dated 26.7.2012, whereby the reference has been decided against the workman by holding that there is no relationship of the employer and employee especially when the workman himself has not stepped into the witness box in support of his case. Vide subsequent order dated 7.8.2013, the application, filed for setting aside the impugned award, was also dismissed, though it has not been specifically challenged in the present proceedings.
(2.) PERUSAL of the paper -book would go on to show that the allegation of the petitioner is that he had worked from 22.4.2002 as a regular workman on the salary of Rs.3,000 per month upto 15.10.2004 with the respondent -Management. Accordingly, he alleged that the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (In short "the Act") were not complied with and no retrenchment compensation had been paid to him. The plea taken by the Management was that the workman was employed by the contractor, namely M/s. Veer Enterprises and no relationship of employer and employee existed. The workman had examined Babu Lal, Clerk and Atar Singh, Assistant but he himself did not step into the witness box. In the absence of the workman himself deposing, the reference was decided against him on 26.7.2012. The award was published on 7.8.2012 and thereafter an application for setting aside of the impugned award was filed on 19.11.2012, after a period of 31/2 months. The said application was contested. It was noticed that several opportunities including last opportunity were granted to the workman to conclude his evidence. Reliance had been placed upon a medical certificate issued by some private doctor to justify his absence, which was rejected. The said application was also dismissed as the Court had become functus officio. Reliance has been rightly placed on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in M/s. Sangham Tape Company v. Hans Raj : 2005(1) RSJ 322. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed. Vide order dated 21.4.2014, an opportunity was given to the workman to place on record deposition of Babu Lal, Clerk and Atar Singh, Assistant and the zimini orders. The order dated 21.4.2014 reads as under: - Counsel for the petitioner submits that the workman had examined Babu Lal, Clerk as PW -1 and Atar Singh, Sr. Assistant as PW -2 in support of his case since the management has denied the relationship of the employer -employee and has taken the plea that the petitioner -workman was an employee of the contractor. He prays for some time to place on record the said depositions and also the zimini orders.
(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is not in touch with him and he is not in a position to comply with the above said order. It is settled proposition of law that the initial onus of proving the relationship of employer and employee is upon the workman himself. He has not stepped into the witness box and deposed to this effect. The failure has, accordingly, led to an adverse inference being drawn against him and the reference was rightly rejected in the above said circumstances.;