IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.4628 of 2011 Date of Decision : December 14, 2011. Dharampal .....Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Ms.Garima Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner-workman is aggrieved by the Award dated 2.3.2009 (Annexure P-1) whereby the reference “as to whether the termination of his services is legal or not” has been answered against him. The petitioner's case was that he was employed by the Gram Panchayat in the year 1994 a pump operator at the Water Works of his village. The Water Works of the village was taken over by the Public Health Department on 1.9.1998 and he claims to have continued to work under the said Department till his services were illegally terminated on 12.4.2004. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned Award. CWP No.4628 of 2011 [2] It is urged that from the material on record, especially the order dated 14.10.2003, passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, it stands proved that there existed relationship of master and servant, hence the impugned Award is unsustainable. In my considered view, the plea taken by the petitioner carries no weightage and is liable to be rejected. The respondents have denied the relationship of employer and employee maintaining that the petitioner was never employed by them. The onus was obviously on the petitioner to establish the relationship. In order to prove that his services were taken over by the Public Health Department, the petitioner relied upon an order dated 14.10.2003 passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, accepting his ex-parte claim for the payment of arrears of wages amounting to Rs.33,000/-. The above order was passed against respondent No.3 & 4 without framing any issue regarding relationship of master and servant nor the Authority returned any specific finding in this regard. It also appears from the impugned Award that respondent Nos.3 & 4 preferred an appeal against the Authority's order dated 14.10.2003 and the District Judge, Bhiwani, in his appellate order observed that the relationship of master and servant was not proved between the parties. The appeal was statedly dismissed on some technical grounds. The appellate order has not been placed on record leaving no option but to accept the observations made by the Labour Court in this regard. The Labour Court has not accepted the plea taken by the CWP No.4628 of 2011 [3] petitioner solely on the basis of copies of the statements of the then Sarpanch of the Village and one more witness who had supported the petitioner's claim for payment of wages before the Authority. The appropriate recourse for the petitioner would have been to summon the muster rolls and prove the payment of wages to him by the Department to establish the relationship of master and servant, especially when respondent Nos.3 & 4 had at the outset denied the petitioner's engagement. Keeping in view the finding of fact referred to above, no case to interfere with the impugned award by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction is made out. Dismissed. December 14, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE