Manoj Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

1. The present writ petition is directed against the Award dated 07.02.2019 passed in LIR No. 2105/2016 (Old I.D. No. 607/14) by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-IX, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, whereby the claim of the petitioner-workman, whereby the claim petition filed by the petitioner/workman has been dismissed.

2. The case of the petitioner/workman, as set up before the learned Labour Court, was that he had been in the employment of the respondentmanagement since 16.10.1998 and was working as a Stitching Master, drawing last wages of Rs. 4,500/- per month. It was alleged that his services W.P.(C) 11246/2019 Pg. 2 of 5 were terminated illegally on 15.05.2010 without compliance of statutory requirements such as the management did not give him any notice and retrenchment compensation.

3. The case of the respondent-management was that there existed no relationship of employer and employee between the parties and that the petitioner was never in its employment.

4. Before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner/workman contended that the learned Labour Court has erred in holding that the petitioner failed to establish the relationship of employer and employee. It was submitted that the petitioner had, in fact, placed on record documentary material in support of his case in the form of a copy of the list of 62 employees whose ESI Smart Forms submitted with ESI on 05.11.2009 (Mark „B‟). It was urged that the learned Labour Court has failed to appreciate the said material and has wrongly proceeded on the premise that no document was filed by the petitioner.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-management supported the impugned Award and submitted that the findings recorded by the Labour Court are based on proper appreciation of evidence and do not warrant interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was contended that the petitioner had failed to discharge the burden of proving the existence of employer-employee relationship and that the claim petition was rightly dismissed. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the decision in Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan & Ors[1] (1964) 5 SCR 64. W.P.(C) 11246/2019 Pg. 3 of 5

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

7. It is well settled that the scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited. The High Court does not act as an appellate authority to reappreciate evidence. However, where the findings returned by the Labour Court are shown to be perverse or based on a misreading of evidence, this Court would be justified in exercising its writ jurisdiction, as held in Syed Yakoob(supra).

8. It is well settled that while the initial burden to establish the existence of an employer-employee relationship lies upon the workman, such burden is not required to be discharged to the extent of proving the case beyond doubt. Once the workman places on record prima facie material, including statutory and contemporaneous documents, the onus shifts upon the management to rebut the same by producing relevant records in its possession.

9. In this context, it is apposite to refer to the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. Mahendra Prasad Jakhmola & Ors[2]., wherein it has been held that factors such as appointment, payment of wages and control and supervision are relevant in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship. The expression “control and supervision” has been explained in the following terms: “22. The expression “control and supervision” were further explained with reference to an earlier judgment of this Court as follows: (Bengal

W.P.(C) 11246/2019 Pg. 4 of 5 Nagpur Cotton Mills case [Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills v. Bharat Lal, (2011) 1 SCC 635: (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 16], SCC pp. 638-39, para 12)

24. We may hasten to add that this view of the law has been reiterated in Balwant Rai Saluja v. Air India Ltd. [Balwant Rai Saluja v. Air India Ltd., (2014) 9 SCC 407: (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 804], as follows: (SCC pp. 437-38, para 65) “65. Thus, it can be concluded that the relevant factors to be taken into consideration to establish an employer-employee relationship would include, inter alia:

(i) who appoints the workers;

(ii) who pays the salary/remuneration;