CWP No. 9603 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 9603 of 2010 Date of decision: 24.05.2010 Girraj Singh s/o Sh. Gangal Ram ...... PETITIONER VERSUS Presiding Officer, Labour Court-III, Faridabad and others ....... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the present writ petition is for quashing of the Award dated 05.10.2009 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Labour Court-III, Faridabad, vide which the reference has been answered against the workman holding him not entitled to any relief. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had produced photocopies of the Annexures which proved that the petitioner was appointed by respondent No. 2. His further contention is that the said CWP No. 9603 of 2010 2 documents should have been taken into consideration by the Labour Court while returning its finding as to whether the petitioner was an employee of respondent No. 2 or not. His further contention is that in any case, the claim qua respondent No. 3 should have been granted by the Labour Court in view of the fact that he was, according to the submission made by respondent No. 3, working with them. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. A perusal of the Award would show that the petitioner had pleaded before the Labour Court that the petitioner was initially appointed by one M/s Astra Construction Private Limited for doing the work of respondent No. 1 and later on his services were transferred to respondent No. 3 i.e. Hindustan Investigation and Security Service. He had not claimed any benefits against respondent No. 3. When he appeared as a witness before the Labour Court, the petitioner had contradicted the averment which he had made in the claim statement by denying that he had never worked with respondent No. 2 but had asserted that he had worked with respondent No. 1. The evidence, which has been produced by the petitioner to prove that the petitioner was appointed and was working with respondent No. 1, were two documents, which were photocopies. The said two documents were denied by the respondent-Management. The same were Wage Registers of respondent No. 2. The petitioner did not summon the original record to prove the genuineness of the same and secondly the month and year on the said document was not mentioned. It was only a typed document and did not bear the name of respondent No. 1 or the signature on the document and if there was, the same was not CWP No. 9603 of 2010 3 clear. Similarly, Mark-B, which was a copy of certificate issued by respondent No. 1, that too was a photostat copy of the same which showed that the petitioner had worked with respondent No. 2 from 08.02.1995 to 05.08.2000. On the said document, strangely enough, apart from the name of respondent No. 2-Company, the words “Respondent No. 1” were also stamped. No original records were summoned with regard to this document as well, which would have proved the authenticity of the said document. Both these documents were denied by the respondents and, therefore, the onus to prove the genuineness of the documents was on the petitioner who had failed to do so. For the reasons mentioned above and the fact that the Labour Court had not accepted these documents Mark A & B to be genuine, is fully justified, no interference is called for. In any case, no claim was made against respondent No. 3 before the Labour Court either in the claim statement or in the oral testimony which the workman had made before the Court below. Therefore, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner would be entitled to the benefits against respondent No. 3 also cannot be accepted. The Award passed by the Labour Court is based on the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties before it and it had considered the same in accordance with law. There is no merit in the present writ petition and thus, the same stands dismissed. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE May 24, 2010 pj