Letters Patent Appeal No.450 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Letters Patent Appeal No.450 of 2009 Date of decision: 6.08.2009 *** Dev Raj ...Appellant Versus M/s Ghai Rubber Industries and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.S.KHEHAR. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. N.S.Bawa, Advocate for the appellant ***** S.D.ANAND, J. 1. The appellant was non-suited by the Labour Court-cum- Industrial Tribunal, Jalandhar (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal) on a fact based finding that he had not been able to prove that he was in the employment of the respondent company. 2. The learned Single Judge affirmed that finding by noticing that there was complete want of evidence to prove the relationship of employer and employee between the parties. 3. It is canvassed before us that the finding deserves interference in view of the fact that it was for the respondent-management to have produced the relevant employment record, the production whereof only could enable the appellant to establish the averment that he was in the Letters Patent Appeal No.450 of 2009 -2- **** employment of respondent-management. 4. We find the argument to be denuded of force. 5. It is apparent from the material obtaining on the record that the appellant's plea was supported by his solitary self-serving statement. He did not, at all, make any endeavour to summon the record of employment from the management. It would be farcical to argue that the onus lays upon the management to produce the employment record. For ascertainment of the facet of onus, we may advert to the pleadings of the parties. In the reply to the claim statement, the management had raised a pure and simple plea that the appellant had never been in its employment. Even when the appellant stepped into witness box, as his own witness, the cross-examination on behalf of the management was directed in the light of the plea aforementioned. The appellant did not summon even the ESI record. The least that the appellant could have done was to requisition the record which could have clinched the issue in his favour. The present is, thus, evidently a case of complete want of evidence to prove the plea of the appellant that he was in the employment of the management. In affirming the view of the Tribunal, the learned Single Judge had appropriately drawn sustenance from Range Forest Officer Versus S.T.Hadimani, 2002 (3) Supreme Court Cases 25, Rajasthan State Ganganagar Mills Limited Vs. State of Rajasthan 2004 (8) S.C.C. 161 and R.M.Yalleti Versus The Assistant Executive Engineer, 2006(1) S.C.C. 106. 6. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, has not been able to invite our attention to any judicial pronouncement to the contrary. Letters Patent Appeal No.450 of 2009 -3- **** 7. In a nut shell, the onus was squarely upon the appellant to prove the relationship of employee and employer before he could validly pursue the plea to obtain 'invalidation' of his alleged termination. He could discharge the onus by summoning whatever record he deemed appropriate to buttress his self-serving statement in proof of the averment. For reasons best known to him, the appellant rest content with his solitary statement and did not take any steps to requisition any record from the employer or the official authorities like the ESI to prove the plea of his being in the employment of the respondent. 8. The finding recorded by the learned Single Judge is well reasoned and cannot be faulted on any valid score. Apart therefrom, the view obtained, in affirmation of the finding of the Tribunal that there is want of material to prove that any relationship of employer and employee exists between the parties to the reference, is based upon the judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court in context of the onus. 8. We have, thus, no hesitation in dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal and it is so ordered accordingly. (S.D.ANAND) JUDGE August 06, 2009 ( J.S.KHEHAR) Pka JUDGE