ORDER : N. Kirubakaran, J. 1. The management is before this Court challenging the award passed by the second respondent. In the industrial dispute which was referred to as per G.O. Rt. No. 140/99 dated November 2, 1994 was adjudicated and by which the first respondent's workers/members are to be reinstated by the petitioner-management. The case of the first respondent before the second respondent was that the petitioner management was engaged in repairing old wooden articles and for that workers were engaged by the respondents. The workers formed a trade union and applied for registration. Since the workers prayed for registration of trade union, they were terminated. Therefore, the Labour Officer (Conciliation) was approached and at the instance of the Labour Officer, the Unit which was closed was reopened with effect from June 11, 1996. The Secretary of the trade union was not given reemployment and the other workers viz. Natarajan, Ramadoss, Vairakannu, Selvamani Prakash and Purushothaman were orally terminated. 2. The petitioner management contended that the workers were not employees of the petitioner and the petitioner management did not engage workers directly. It only engaged three workers namely Murugan, Sandhiyagu and Susila who worked in the shop in 1996 and none of other persons were employees of the petitioner management. At the earliest point of time viz. During the registration of workers union, the petitioner raised objection for formation of union. The petitioner further stated in the counter affidavit that there is no Employer - Employee relationship and the Union has got no locus standi to raise the dispute and that whenever there was work, the same is used to be entrusted to the workers on job basis. It is pointed out in para 5 of the counter that necessary details of names and description of the employees are not given in the claim statements filed by the Union. In fine the petitioner submitted the members of the first respondent union are not workmen of the petitioner. 3. On appreciation of pleadings and documentary evidence, the Labour Court reinstated the workers in the petitioner management without back wages. The award of the Tribunal was published in the gazette dated March 30, 2004. The said award is being challenged before this Court. 4. Mr. Ravindran, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that only a few workers were employed by the management and that too on job basis. The award of the Tribunal was published in the gazette dated March 30, 2004. The said award is being challenged before this Court. 4. Mr. Ravindran, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that only a few workers were employed by the management and that too on job basis. The members of the first respondent Union are not employees of the management and there is no employer-employee relationship. Secondly he contended that there is no locus standi for the union to canvass the case of the members. He further pointed out that the names of the workers shown in the petition are not their workers. He referred to para 3 of the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner management to contend that Mr. Damodharan, A. Elumalai, B. Velmurugan and other names described in the award are strangers. Moreover he pointed out from paragraph 14 of the award that the workers namely Balaraman, Ashokan, Haridoss, Krishnan, A. Ashokan and K. Purushothasman are not placed in the list given in the award which occurs at page 1 of the award. 5. Learned counsel further submitted that the document Exhibit A-15 to 21 are postal cards sent by Mr. Balaraman, Ashokan, Haridoss, Krishnan, A. Ashokan, Purushothasman who are not employees of the petitioner-management. He would submit that Exhibits 15 to 21 cannot prove the employment of the workers engaged by the petitioner management and there was no evidence on the side of the workers to prove their employment. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (1) Workmen of Nilgiri Coop. Mkt. Society Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, (2004) 3 SCC 514 , (2) State of Haryana and Others Vs. Devi Dutt and Others, (2006) 13 SCC 32 (3) Municipal Committee Tauru Vs. Harpal Singh and Another, (1998) 5 SCC 635 , G.M., B.S.N.L. and Others Vs. Mahesh Chand, (2008) 3 SCC 474 , and submitted that there is no evidence to come to the conclusion that the members of the first respondent union are employees and there exists no employee employer relationship. Therefore, he seeks setting aside the award. 6. On the other hand Mr. Ayyadurai learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the names of some of the employees are found place and the same was admitted by the petitioner management in its counter. Therefore, he seeks setting aside the award. 6. On the other hand Mr. Ayyadurai learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the names of some of the employees are found place and the same was admitted by the petitioner management in its counter. Secondly Exhibits A-15 to 21 were rightly relied upon by the labour Court, to come to the conclusion that the members of the Union were employees and there existed employer employee relationship and therefore the Tribunal rightly passed the award. He relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishan Singh Vs. Executive Engineer, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Rohtak (Haryana), (2010) 3 SCC 637 , and in Santuram Yadav and Another Vs. Secretary, Krishi Upaj M.S. Bemetara and Another, (2010) 3 SCC 189 , 7. Heard parties and perused the records. It is seen from the records that the claim statement does not disclose the names of the workers except some of the office bearers of the Union. The award speaks about 32 members. The Labour Court in para 14 relied upon Exhibits A-15 to 21 which are all post cards sent and received by workers viz. Balaraman, Ashokan, Haridoss, V. Krishnan, A. Ashokan and K. Purushothasman. In para 3 of the counter affidavit it has been specifically denied by the petitioner management except Mr. Murugan, Sandiagu and Susila, none others referred to in the claim petition are employees of the petitioner management. When that is the position, it is the bounden duty of the workers to prove their employment through documentary evidence or atleast by oral evidence. No such step was taken by the employees as rightly pointed out by Mr. Ravindran, the names referred by the Tribunal in. paragraph 14 of the award are not. reflected in the claim petition. Therefore, the Labour Court ought not to have relied upon Exhibits A-15 to A21, which were issued to some third parties to come to the conclusion that they are workmen of the petitioner management, in the absence of any proof with regard to employment of the persons named in paragraph 14 of the award they cannot be the employees of the petitioner. In paragraph 19 of the award, the Labour Court itself stated as follows: Even though, on the workers side, they could not provide clinching evidence to show that the other 30 workers out of the 32 workers referred to in the industrial dispute worked under the respondent, the manner of the respondent's denial leads to the irresistible conclusion that the case of the petitioner is genuine and the case of the respondent is false and accordingly, the Labour Court would be justified in arriving at a conclusion that those 32 workers referred to in the reference were employed by the respondent. 8. The aforesaid findings would make it clear that there was no evidence to prove that 30 workers out of 32 workers worked under the respondent. When the Labour Court came to the conclusion that 32 workers were employees of the petitioner management is without any substantial evidence. On this sole ground, the award is liable to be set aside. It is the bounden duty of the parties who approach the Court to prove their claim. Though the rigid rule of law of evidence may not be applicable to the proceedings before the Labour Court, still initial burden is on the party, who approaches the Court, as per the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court, in G.M., B.S.N.L and Others v. Mahesh Chand (supra) In this case the Labour Court wrongly put. the burden of proof on the management. Whereas it is the workers who approached the Court who are duty bound to prove their employment. In this case the worker did, not discharge the initial burden especially the Management denied employment and therefore the award is liable to be set aside. The Honourable Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Others v. Devi Dutt and Others (supra) held that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the superior Court can set aside the findings on the ground (1) when it is perverse, (2) when wrong legal principles/ provisions have been applied, (3) wrong question is posed, (4) when relevant facts have not been taken into consideration, (5) or findings have been arrived on the basis of relevant facts or extraneous consideration. In this case, the burden of proof is wrongly cast upon the management. Therefore, the award is liable to be set. aside. In this case, the burden of proof is wrongly cast upon the management. Therefore, the award is liable to be set. aside. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Municipal Committee Tauru v. Harpal Singh and Another (supra) held in para 9 as follows: 9. Even in labour matters a claimant goes before the Court or Tribunal with a case and it is upon the merits of that case that relief is to be granted or refused to him. To look to his case is not to look at technicalities. There is no substantial justice; when the Court or Tribunal gives relief to a workman which is on a basis that is totally contrary to the basis upon which he approached it; which indeed is the employers case. Substantial justice must be done both to the employer and the employees. In this case the Labour Court gave relief to the workmen totally contrary to the claim in the claim petition. The worker's case was not properly focused before the Labour Court. If there is no documentary evidence or documentary evidence is insufficient, the workers should have let in oral evidence. In this case, no oral evidence was adduced on behalf of both petitioner as well as workers. It is seen that even though certain vital documents are available, they were not properly placed. The lapse on the part of the workers has led to the setting aside of the award. Interest of justice requires an opportunity to be given to the workers to properly adduce evidence as per law. The Honourable Supreme Court in the judgment in Santuram Yadav and Another v. Secretary Krishi Upaj K.S. Bemetara (supra) directed the parties to place the material documents, which were omitted to be placed before the Tribunal. Therefore the award of the Labour Court is set aside and remanded to the Labour Court to reconsider the claim of the workman afresh as per law. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. Consequently the connected W.M.P. No. 26423/2004 and W.V.M.P. No. 1027/2005 are closed. No costs.