JUDGMENT
Manju Goel, J.
1. The petitioners are assailing the award of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-III, Karkardooma, Delhi in I.D. No. 489/2001 in which the terms of reference were:
Whether the services of the workmen as per Annexure-`A’ have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by way of closure. If so, to what sum of money as monetary relief along with consequential benefits in terms of existing laws/Govt. Notifications and to what other relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?
2. The workmen involved were Rajender Prasad, Ram Swaroop, Rakesh Tiwari, Suresh Bhatti, Phool Deo, Anil Kumar, Manoj Yadav, Ved Prakash, Kamal Singh, Ram Kishore, Rakesh Kumar, Sunil Kumar and Moti Lal who are the petitioners in this case, except Late Kamal Singh who is represented by his wife Smt. Jamna Devi.
3. The Labour Court, inter alia, framed an issue as to whether the relationship of employer and employee existed between the parties. After trial, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that these workmen had failed to prove that there had been, in fact, any relationship of employees and employer between them and the management. The petitioners claim that this finding of the Labour Court is wrong because the respondent/management had failed to produce the relevant documents in Court. The law is well settled on this point. The onus to prove the relationship is squarely on the employee or the workman who comes to the Labour Court to claim a relief under the Industrial Disputes Act and non production of document like muster roll cannot lead to a finding in favor of workman. The judgments which can be referred to are:
(i) Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. 2004-III-Labour Law Journal 832 (SC).
(ii) Surendranagar Panchayat and Anr. v. Jethabhai Pitamberbhai 2006-I-LLJ 268 (SC).
4. On the last date of hearing, the petitioners were questioned about their being any evidence about their relationship with the respondent/management. All that the petitioners could offer was letters which the petitioners received from their homes at the address of the management. These letters would not prove any relationship between the management and the petitioners.
5. This Court is not an appellate court and cannot reappreciate the evidence led by the management before the Labour Court. There is no perversity in the judgment of the Labour Court. Nor does it suffer from any illegality calling for interference. The writ petition is dismissed.