IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No.455 of 2019 Decided on 07th August, 2025 Indian Express and others …Petitioners Versus S.P. Jerath …Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the petitioners: Mr. Navlesh Verma, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Nishant Khidtta, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following relief:- “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the present petition may very kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated d03.04.2019 Annexure P-5 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Shimla in Civil Miscellaneous application under order XIV Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC in Reference N.72 of 2017 with the prayer that the present petition may very kindly be accepted and the impugned order dated 03.04.2019 may very kindly be quashed and set aside.” 2. The petitioners is aggrieved by order dated 03.04.2019, in terms whereof, an application filed under Order XIV rule 5 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for 2 modifying and amending the issues as were framed by the Court on 25.09.2018, has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the learned Court below erred in not appreciating that onus of proving issue No.5 could not have been upon the petitioner and, because, it was the workmen, who was alleging that he was the employee of the petitioner, therefore, onus was upon him to prove that he was the employee. He further submitted that issue No.1 was also not properly framed and these extremely important aspects of the matter stand ignored by the learned Court below while passing the impugned order. No other point was urged. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Nishant Khidtta, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no perversity in the order for the reason that as it was the petitioner, who was disputing the relationship of employer and employee between the respondent herein and, therefore, rightly the onus of proving said issue was correctly fixed upon the employer. He further submitted that there is no infirmity in the framing of issue No.1 also, because, it is strictly in consonance with the Reference as was 3 made by the appropriate Government to the learned Labour Court. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the order under challenge as well as other documents on record, this Court does not finds any infirmity in the impugned order. 6. The Reference, been made by the appropriate Government to the learned Labour Court, reads as under:- “Whether the action of the employers Editor Indian Express, C-5, Industrial Area, Sector-6, Panchkula (Haryana) 134109 for not paying claim of arrears amounting to Rs.9,06,157/- (Rs. Nine Lekh Six Thousand One hundred Fifty Only) Shri S.P. Jerath District Correspondent Indian Express, Hospital road Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P. as difference of wages actually drawn and due as per recommendation of Majithia Wage Boards (copy of claim enclosed) constituted under Sections 9 and 13(C) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Condition of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955) is legal and justified? If yes, to what amount of relief/arrear, along-with interest etc. the aggrieved employee is entitled to from the above employers/Management?” 7. Issue No.1 and issue No.5 framed by the learned Labour Court read as under:- 4 Issue No.1. “Whether the action of the employer/respondent for not paying claim of arrears amounting to Rs.9,06,157 (Rs. Nine Lekh Six Thousand One Hundred Fifty Only) to the petitioner as difference of wages actually drawn and due as per recommendation of Majithia Wage Boards (copy of claim enclosed) constituted under Sections 9 and 13(C) of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Condition of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955) is illegal and unjustified, as alleged? OPP. Issue No.5. Whether there is no employee and employer relationship between the petitioner and respondent, as alleged? OPR.” 8. In the light of the Reference that was made by the appropriate Government to the learned Labour Court and the claim that was put forth by the workman before the learned Labour Court, there is no infirmity in issue No.1 as was framed by the learned Labour Court and even during the course of his submissions, learned counsel representing the petitioners could not demonstrate as to what was the infirmity in the said issue vis- à-vis the Reference and the claim raised by the workman. 5 8. As far as issue No.5 is concerned, the contention of the learned counsel that the onus to prove this issue should have been on the workman has no merit. 9. A perusal of the issue demonstrates that the same is to the effect as to whether there is no employer employee relationship between the petitioners and the respondent as alleged. As this issue has been framed on the objection/response of the petitioners herein to the claim petition that the claimant is not its employee and because, this issue has been framed on the defence taken by the present petitioners before the learned Labour Court, then obviously, the onus to prove this issue has to be upon the present petitioners and not the workman. 10. In fact, this Court is really surprised that the petitioners have chosen to file this writ petition on the grounds as are raised therein because fact of the matter is that there is no infirmity in the framing of the issues the petitioners would have been well advised of course legally to contest the Reference on merit rather than delaying it by filing this frivolous CMPMO. 6 11. Though, the Court was inclined to impose cost upon the petitioner but on the persuasion of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it has not done. 11. In the light of the above observations, this petition being devoid of any is dismissed. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 07, 2025 (Vinod)