JUDGMENT : SURJIT SINGH, J. 1. Heard and gone through the record. 2. Respondent No. 2 is Union of workers employed by the petitioner. Three workers, namely Kulwant Kumar, Parkash Singh and Nirmal Singh were removed from service after conducting inquiry, in accordance with the requisite procedure. On behalf of the workers, a request was made to the government for making a reference to the Industrial Tribunal. Government made reference in the following terms: (a) Whether the enquiry conducted by the Management of M/S Federal Mogul Bearings India Ltd. Parwanoo, District Solan, HP, against Shri Kulwant Kumar S/o Sh. Barhamu Ram, Sh. Parkash Singh S/o Sh. Charan Singh and Sh. Nirmal Singh S/o Mukhtayar Singh is fair and justified and based on the Principal of Natural Justice?" If not, the enquiry report dated 8.1.2008, deserved to be quashed? (b) Whether the punishment of dismissal from services imposed on Sh. Kulwant Kumar S/o late Sh. Barhmu Ram, Operator w.e.f. 7.7.2008, by order dated 7.7.2008, Sh. Parkash Singh S/o Sh. Charan Singh, Operator and Sh. Nirmal Singh S/o Sh. Mukhtayar Singh, Operator w.e.f. 8.7.2008, vide orders dated 8.7.2008, is proportionate to their misconduct proved in the enquiry? If not, whether the orders of dismissal from services of above said three workmen deserve to be quashed and what relief the workers including the reinstatement of services alongwith service benefits, seniority and wages from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement, they are entitled for? (c) Whether sit-in-strike/strike w.e.f. 8.7.2008 by the workers of M/S Federal Mogul Bearings India Ltd. Parwanoo, Distt. Solan H.P. in support of three dismissed operators S/Sh. Kulwant Kumar, Parkash Singh and Nirmal Singh is legal and justified, as alleged by the above said management? If not, its effects on the service conditions of such workers? (d) As alleged by the workers union, whether the lock-out of the above said factory establishment by the management against the protest of the workers who were protesting against the dismissal of the above said three workers, and further to seek undertaking from each worker for entering the gate of factory/establishment for working there, is legal and justified? If not, to relief and service benefits including wages, the workers affected by the lock-out, are entitled for? 3. Parties submitted their respective cases to the Industrial Tribunal and the Tribunal framed various issues. If not, to relief and service benefits including wages, the workers affected by the lock-out, are entitled for? 3. Parties submitted their respective cases to the Industrial Tribunal and the Tribunal framed various issues. One of the issues pertained to the dispute as to whether inquiry was conducted in a just and fair manner. Onus of this issue was placed upon the petitioner (employer). Grievance of the petitioner is that onus of proof of this issue should have been upon the union of workers/workers, because it were they who had alleged that inquiry was not conducted in a just and fair manner. 4. Reasoning given by the Industrial Tribunal is that since in the reference wording is "whether the inquiry was just and fair", the onus of proof had been placed upon the employer. Reasoning is not correct. Issues are not required to be framed on the basis of terms of the reference, but in accordance with the allegations and counter allegations of the parties. Since it is respondent No. 2, which has made the allegation that inquiry was not just and fair and the petitioner (employer) controverted this allegation, the onus of proof should have been upon respondent No. 2 or the workers. 5. In view of the above stated position, writ petition is allowed and it is directed that Industrial Tribunal shall recast the issue, in question, so as to place the onus of proof of the aforesaid issue upon respondent No. 2/workers. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.