Gurudhiyan Singh Rana vs Indomag Steel Technology Ltd.

$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: 08 September, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010329862007
+ W.P.(C) 2434/2007
GURUDHIYAN SINGH RANA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.S. Tomar, Adv.
versus
INDOMAG STEEL TECHNOLOGY LTD. .....Respondent
Through: Dr. Lalit Bhasin, Ms. Nina
Gupta, Mr. Aditya Bhasin, Ms.
Vishali S. & Mr. Ajay Pratap
Singh, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition is filed under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India, assailing the award dated 16.12.2006
(hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Award” ) passed in I.D. No.
382/1999. The Learned Labour Court, by the impugned award, held
the termination to be not illegal or unjustified; hence, the workman
was held to be not entitled to any relief.
2. Briefly stated, the workman/Petitioner was working as a Driver
for the managing director of Respondent-Company from 20.07.1994
at a monthly salary of Rs. 3,000/- per month plus overtime at Rs.15/-
per hour, and his last drawn wages were Rs. 4400/- per month.
3. It is the case of the workman that he was made to work for 12
hours and was only paid for 8 hours, and was denied the appointment
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2434/2007 Page 1 of 6
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
17:40:08

letter, leave book, weekly off and annual leave apart from the statutory
benefits.
4. Thereafter, on 28.05.1998, the workman lodged a complaint
before the Labour Department, Government of NCT of Delhi, through
the General Mazdoor Trade Union, Giri Nagar, New Delhi. Pursuant
thereto, the Labour Inspector visited the Respondent's premises on
12.06.1998. Subsequently, the services of the workman were
terminated w.e.f. 31.05.1999. Aggrieved thereby, the workman,
through the said General Mazdoor Trade Union, served a demand
notice upon the Respondent on 01.06.1999, raising an industrial
dispute regarding the illegal termination of his services.
5. On 15.06.1999, the workman raised an industrial dispute before
the learned Conciliation Officer. Subsequently, vide Order dated
14.09.1999, the appropriate Government referred the dispute to the
learned Labour Court for adjudication on the following terms of
reference:
“ Whether the services of Shri Gurudhiyan Singh Rana have been
terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management, and if
so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in
this respect?”
6. The learned Labour Court framed issues, which are as follows:
i) Whether there was a relationship of employer and employee
between the parties?
ii) Whether services of the workman were terminated illegally
and/or unjustifiably?
iii) Relief.”
7. The learned Labour Court, vide its impugned Award dated
16.12.2006, while adjudicating the issues referred to it, held that the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2434/2007 Page 2 of 6
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
17:40:08

workman had failed to establish the existence of an employer-
employee relationship between the parties. Consequently, the learned
Labour Court held that no question of service arose, and that the
termination of service could not be said to be illegal and/or
unjustified.
8. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition has been filed.
9. The learned counsel for the workman submitted that the
workman was employed as a Driver by the Managing Director. He
submits that although no formal appointment letter was issued, an
Identity Card of the company bearing the workman's name was issued
to him, duly signed by the Managing Director himself. He further
submits that when the matter was taken up before the Labour
Department, upon inspection of the establishment, the Labour
Inspector recorded the workman's name at Serial No. 1 in the list of
employees found working there, thereby confirming that the workman
was, in fact, an employee of the respondent company.
10. Per contra , it is the case of the Respondent that the workman
was engaged as the personal driver of the Managing Director and not
as an employee of the Respondent Company. The identity card relied
upon by the workman was issued by the Managing Director solely to
facilitate the workman's entry into the office premises and did not
establish an employer-employee relationship with the Respondent
Company. The workman has failed to place any documentary or other
cogent evidence on record to demonstrate that he was ever employed
by the Respondent Company.
11. I have heard the counsel and perused the record.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2434/2007 Page 3 of 6
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
17:40:08

12. At the outset, it is necessary to note that the scope of
interference under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
with an Award passed by the Learned Tribunal. This Court’s
interference is only warranted where the findings are perverse, based
on no evidence, suffer from patent illegality or disclose a jurisdictional
error. This Court, while exercising writ jurisdiction, cannot re-
appreciate the evidence led before the learned Labour Court as though
rehearing the matter on facts. Merely because another view on the
evidence is possible would not justify interference. Reference in this
regard may be made to the judgment in International Airport
Authority of India v. International Air Cargo Workers
Union : (2009) 13 SCC 374 where the Hon’ble Apex Court held as
under:-
“47. It is true that in exercising the writ
jurisdiction, the High Court cannot sit in appeal
over the findings and award of the Industrial
Tribunal and therefore, cannot reappreciate
evidence. The findings of fact recorded by a fact-
finding authority should ordinarily be considered
as final. The findings of the Tribunal should not
be interfered with in writ jurisdiction merely on
the ground that the material on which the
Tribunal had acted was insufficient or not
credible.
48. It is also true that as long as the findings of
fact are based on some materials which are
relevant, findings may not be interfered with
merely because another view is also possible. But
where the Tribunal records findings on no
evidence or irrelevant evidence, it is certainly
open to the High Court to interfere with the
award of the Industrial Tribunal.”
13. A perusal of the impugned Award reveals that the learned
Labour Court has meticulously examined the evidence adduced on
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2434/2007 Page 4 of 6
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
17:40:08

record and has returned findings based on the material available
before it. The learned Labour Court, while examining Issue No.1 ,
considered the contentions of the workman and based on the evidence
on record, found that the workman was merely the personal driver of
the Managing Director and not an employee of the Respondent. It has
also examined the evidentiary value of the Identity Card (Ex. WW1/1)
relied upon by the workman, the nature of his engagement, and the
documents placed on record by the workman regarding Vehicle No.
DL-3C-J-5692, which shows that the car was owned by the company
but at the same time Ex. WW1/2 shows that the workman was
employed to drive car no. DL1C-D-4876, which was allotted to the
Managing Director for his personal use. The learned Labour Court
rightly noted that at the time of the accident, the wife of the Managing
Director was travelling in the said vehicle, that the expenses towards
accident repairs were borne from the personal funds of the Managing
Director, and that no memo was issued by the management in relation
to the said accident. The learned Labour Court has rightly held that the
Gate Pass (Ex. WW1/14) only indicated that the workman rendered
service to the Managing Director in his personal capacity.
14. In regard to Issue No.2 , it was held that the workman had failed
to establish an employer-employee relationship with the Respondent.
The evidence on record clearly demonstrated that the workman was
merely the personal driver of the Managing Director, and that
whatever facilities were extended to him, including the Identity Card
enabling his entry into the premises, among other things, were
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2434/2007 Page 5 of 6
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
17:40:08

provided solely for the benefit and convenience of the Managing
Director, and not on account of any employment by the Respondent.
15. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court finds no perversity, illegality, or infirmity in the impugned
Award warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the impugned Award
dated 16.12.2006 does not suffer from any error apparent on the face
of the record, nor does it call for any interference by way of judicial
review.
16. This Court is of the view that the Learned Labour Court has
rightly considered all the evidence and facts placed on record and has
examined the evidence produced by the parties and returned a
considered finding after appreciation of the material on record. The
learned Labour Court has rightly considered the evidence advanced by
the parties and has taken a plausible view.
17. In the opinion of this Court, the present Writ Petition, being
devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
18. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of in the
aforementioned terms.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
SEPTEMBER 8, 2026
“SK”
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2434/2007 Page 6 of 6
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
17:40:08