Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 28.04.2026
BANSH BAHADUR SINGH .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Rishabh Jetley, Advocate.
Through: Mr. Vikas Nagpal, Advocate.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA TEJAS KARIA, J. (Oral)
JUDGMENT
1. This Application is filed on behalf of the Appellant seeking condonation of delay in filing the present Appeal.
2. For the reasons stated in the Application, the same stands allowed and the delay of 465 days in filing the present Appeal stands condoned.
3. The Application stands disposed of.
4. The present Letters Patent Appeal is filed being aggrieved by the judgment dated 09.05.2019 (“Impugned Judgment”) passed in W.P.(C) 8570/2007 (“Writ Petition”).
5. The Appellant has averred the facts leading up to filing of the present Appeal as under:
5.1. The Appellant joined the services of the Respondent as a Salesman on a monthly salary of ₹850/- in 1986. The Respondent was a proprietorship firm and Mr. Bakshish Singh was the proprietor of the Respondent, who had got an ESIC card issued in favour of the Appellant under the name of one J.S. Enterprises, which was being operated under the name of his son Mr. Jasbir Singh Sira. The Appellant was not aware about the above arrangement and was under the bona fide belief that the ESIC card had been issued by the Respondent.
5.2. On 07.12.1991, the Respondent forcibly obtained the resignation of the Appellant and refused employment to him. The Respondent also made the Appellant sign some blank papers and vouchers pursuant to which a legal demand notice dated 18.12.1991 was affected by the Appellant through Rashtriya General Majdoor Union and a report dated 23.12.1991 was given by the Labour Inspector to Rashtriya General Majdoor Union that the Respondent had refused to reinstate the Appellant.
5.3. The report of the Labour Inspector recorded that the Appellant was never an employee of the Respondent. Before the conciliation officer, the Respondent took a stand that the Appellant had left his job after full and final settlement, which was refused by the Appellant and, therefore, a reference was made on 15.10.1992 by the appropriate Government.
5.4. The Appellant filed his statement of claim on 14.04.1993 reiterating his contentions that he was forced to resign on 07.12.1991 by the Respondent and his signatures were taken on blank paper and vouchers on 12.12.1991.
5.5. The Respondent filed written statement denying the existence of any employer employee relationship between the parties and denied that any Labour Inspector had visited the management of the Respondent.
5.6. On 25.09.1998, the learned Labour Court framed the following issues: i. Whether there exists no relationship of employer and employee between the Parties? ii. Whether the Respondent is not an Industry? iii. As per the terms of reference.
5.7. The Appellant filed his affidavit for examination in chief and was subjected to cross examination wherein he deposed that he was working with the Respondent and used to prepare cabinet for televisions. He further stated that the ESIC card had been given to him by the Respondent. In the cross examination, the Appellant admitted that after the termination of his services by the Respondent, he had worked with another establishment from 1994 to 2001.
5.8. Respondent No. 1 tendered the affidavit of Mr. Gurbir Singh as the management’s witness, and he supported the version of the management put forth in the written statement.
5.9. The learned Labour Court vide award dated 02.02.2007 (“Award”) decided the issue no. 1 in favour of the Respondent and against the Appellant holding that the Appellant failed to prove that he was employed with the Respondent. Whereas, issue no. 2 was decided in favour of the Appellant and against the Respondent holding that the Respondent failed to prove that it is not an Industry. As issue no. 1 was decided against the Appellant, issue no. 3 was also decided against the Appellant holding that the Appellant failed to prove that his services were illegally terminated by the Respondent.
5.10. Being aggrieved by the Award, the Appellant filed the Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge vide Impugned Judgment dismissed the Writ Petition and upholding the finding of the learned Labour Court qua issue no. 1 holding that the Appellant had failed to prove that he was employed with the Respondent and, accordingly, the finding of the learned Labour Court in relation to issue no. 3 that the Appellant failed to prove that his services were illegally terminated by the Respondent was also upheld.
5.11. In view of the same, the Appellant has filed the present Appeal.
6. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that:
6.1. The learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the principles of strict rules of evidence do not apply to the Industrial Dispute Adjudications and it is settled law that benefit of doubt has to be given to the workman.
6.2. The learned Single Judge erred in holding that there was no documentary evidence led by the Appellant to establish that there was an employer employee relationship between the Appellant and the Respondent since the ESIC card did not pertain to the Respondent. However, the learned Single Judge did not appreciate that the ESIC card pertain to a concern that was being run by the son of the proprietor of the Respondent.
6.3. Considering that the Respondent had concealed material facts and taken contradictory stands before the learned Labour Court, and that the witness of the Respondent had also made several admissions in the cross examination, it was established that the Respondent was attempting to evade the obligation as an employer.
6.4. The learned Single Judge erroneously upheld the finding of the learned Labour Court that the Appellant did not prove the employer employee relationship between the Appellant and the Respondent by ignoring the contents of the report of the Labour Inspector, wherein it is stated that the management refused to take back the Appellant in service, which implied that there was an employer employee relationship, which had been admitted by the Respondent.
6.5. The learned Single Judge failed to consider the reply of the Respondent to the statement of claim before the Conciliation Officer wherein it was stated that the Appellant had worked with the Respondent for a certain period after which he received full and final dues and left the job office on own accord, which clearly amounts to an admission on part of the Respondent that the Appellant was its employee.
7. The learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that:
7.1. The learned Labour Court passed an Award in favour of the Respondent after examining the extensive evidence led by the Parties and concluded that the Appellant had failed to prove that he was in employment with the Respondent as the ESIC card did not pertain to the Respondent and the Appellant failed to examine the Labour Inspector, who had submitted the report stating that the Respondent had refused to reinstate the Appellant.
7.2. Further, the Appellant stated in his affidavit of evidence that he was not employed since 07.03.1991, whereas in the cross examination he admitted that he had joined M/s Sahani Rubber in 1994 and was removed from the same in 2001. Accordingly, the Appellant had made false statements in his affidavit and the learned Labour Court rightly observed that it was not safe to rely upon his affidavit.
7.3. There were inconsistencies and discrepancies in the testimony of the Appellant as regards the nature of the duties and engagement between him and the Respondent as the Appellant has contended that he used to work as a Salesman with the Respondent and that the management of the Respondent also got the work of polishing the furniture done from him and also that the complete set of cabinets of TVs were prepared by him. The Appellant has also not stated the specific date when he started the employment with the Respondent. Accordingly, the findings in the Award are accurate.
7.4. When the findings of the learned Labour Court were based on an appreciation of the material placed on record and are neither perverse nor arbitrary, the learned Single Judge was right in not interfering with the same.
7.5. As the Appellant failed to prove the employer employee relationship with the Respondent in response to issue no. 1, the finding in relation to issue no. 3 by the learned Labour Court was rightly not faulted with by the learned Single Judge.
7.6. The learned Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge have rightly not relied upon the evidence of the Appellant as he made false statements about the status of his employment.
8. We have heard the learned Counsel for the Parties and perused the material available on record.
9. Both the learned Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge have concurrently found that the Appellant had failed to prove the employeremployee relationship. The Appellant has relied upon two documents to support his claim regarding status of his employment with the Respondent. Firstly, the ESIC Card in the name of the Appellant was stated to be issued by the entity run by the son of the proprietor of the Respondent. In absence of the name of the Respondent appearing on the ESIC Card, both the learned Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge have held that the Appellant was unable to prove the employer-employee relationship through the ESIC Card. Secondly, the report of the Labour Commissioner was relied upon by the Appellant, which states that the management of the Respondent refused to take back the Appellant in service. It is contended by the Appellant that the words ‘take back’ indicates that the Appellant was working with the Respondent prior to his termination and, therefore, the Labour Inspector has mentioned the term ‘take back’. However, the Appellant failed to examine the Labour Commissioner, who submitted the said report to prove the contents of the said report of the Labour Inspector issued to Rashtriya General Majdoor Union.
10. As the learned Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge have extensively discussed the evidence led by the Parties before the learned Labour Court in the Award and the Impugned Judgment respectively, no substantive ground has been made in this Appeal that requires interference with the Impugned Judgment.
11. Considering that the Appellant had made a statement on affidavit that he was unemployed which was found to be false during cross examination, the learned Labour Court had rightly refused to rely upon the affidavit filed by the Appellant, which has been upheld by the learned Single Judge in the Impugned Judgment. The Appellant has not offered any explanation for making such false statement.
12. The learned Single Judge has rightly observed in the Impugned Judgment that the jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 can be exercised for correcting errors of the jurisdiction committed by the inferior Courts / Tribunals or when the jurisdiction has been exercised illegally or improperly, however, the supervisory jurisdiction does not entitle this Court to act as an Appellate Court by reopening or questioning the findings of facts after appreciation of evidence in absence of any error apparent on the face of the record or perversity committed by the inferior Courts / Tribunals.
13. In the present case, the learned Labour Court held that the Appellant did not establish the existence of an employer-employee relationship, after thoroughly reviewing the evidence on record. The Single Judge, in the Impugned Judgment, has assessed the validity of these findings and affirmed them, noting that the conclusions reached by the learned Labour Court were not perverse, arbitrary, or capricious, and thus found no grounds to interfere with the Award.
14. Upon careful consideration of the Parties' submissions and review of both the Award and the Impugned Judgment, we conclude that after evaluating the evidence on record, the Appellant was found to have failed in proving the key documents and provided false statements in his affidavit. Thus, the Appellant was unable to establish the employer-employee relationship between the Appellant and the Respondent. Consequently, the Award passed by the learned Labour Court against the Appellant on the issue of alleged illegal termination was correctly upheld in the Impugned Judgement.
15. Accordingly, the Appellant has not made out any case for interfering with the Impugned Judgment. Resultantly, the present Appeal is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
TEJAS KARIA, J DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ APRIL 28, 2026 ap