IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.11764 of 2008 Date of Decision:- 20.03.2009 Parvesh Singh ....Petitioner(s) vs. P.O.Labour Court, Gurdaspur and another ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.M.S.Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.R.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate for the respondent. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) In the present writ petition, challenge is to award dated 5.2.2008 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Labour Court, Gurdaspur wherein the reference has been answered against the workman primarily on the ground that he has not been able to establish the relationship of employee and employer between the workman and the respondent. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the workman had stepped into the witness box and while appearing as WW-I had tendered his affidavit along with which he had also tendered documents Mark 'X' at pages 1 to 6. He further contends that the best evidence, which was in the form of the records, was available with the respondent-Management which has been withheld from the Court because of which the relationship of the master and servant could not be established. However, he contends that the documents which have been produced by the workman, when taken into consideration, would clearly show that indeed the workman was employed C.W.P.No.11764 of 2008 -2- with the respondent-Management. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent contends that the documents which have been attached with the affidavit, Mark 'X' at pages 1 to 6 have not been proved before the Labour Court. The workman did not call for the records of the respondent-Management which would have showed that the documents were indeed issued by the Management. He further contends that in case the workman was of the view that the Management is withholding the evidence or the records which would have showed that he was employed by the Management, he could have moved an application before the Labour Court for production of the said records. Having failed to do so, the contention as raised by the counsel for the petitioner, cannot be accepted. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned award passed by the Labour Court. A perusal of the award clearly shows that no request on the part of the workman was ever made before the Labour Court for production of records by the Management which, he alleges, has been withheld by the respondent-Management and could have determined the relationship of employer and employee. It has been conceded by the counsel for the petitioner that no such application was indeed moved before the Labour Court. Therefore, this contention of the counsel for the petitioner no more survives. Had a request been made by the workman for production of the records and the relevant records have not then been produced by the Management, an adverse inference could have been drawn against the Management. Having failed to discharge the onus with regard to his C.W.P.No.11764 of 2008 -3- proving the relationship of employer and employee and having not taken due care and caution to prove his relationship by way of documents, the workman cannot be now allowed to turn around and say that the Management has withheld the said documents. In the absence of any request for production of the documents, no adverse inference could be drawn against the Management for non-production thereof. In this view of the matter, the onus having not been discharged by the workman to prove the relationship of employer and employee between the workman and the management, the findings as recorded by the Labour Court cannot be said to be not based upon the pleadings and the evidence led thereon by the parties which would call for any interference by this Court. Finding no merit in the writ petition, the same stands dismissed. March 20, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE