M/S Vadhera Oil Company vs The Presiding Officer Labour Court Delhi And Anr

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on:05.08.2026
Judgment pronounced on:08.09.2026
Judgment uploaded on: 08.09.2026
# CNR No. DLHC011292372016
+ W.P.(C) 4091/2016 & CM APPL. 19629/2024
M/S VADHERA OIL COMPANY ..... Petitioner
versus
THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT DELHI
AND ANR ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Ms. Jaspreet & Ms. Shweta, Advs.
For the Respondent : Ms. Somya Singh, Mr. Anshul Sharma &
Mr. Monik Nagil, Advs. for R2 with R2 in
person
CORAM
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed challenging the correctness of
award dated 09.02.2016 (hereafter ‘ impugned award ’), passed in
Reference Case (ID) No. 356/2012, whereby the learned Labour Court
found the termination of Respondent No.2 workman to be illegal and
awarded him a lump-sum compensation of ₹1,50,000/- and litigation
expenses of ₹20,000/-.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:01:38
W.P.(C) 4091/2016 Page 1 of 12

2. Briefly stated, a dispute was raised by the workman on the
strength of his claim that he had been working with the petitioner
management as a driver since January, 2003. It was further claimed
that no appointment letter was issued to the workman and the
petitioner management stopped paying the entire salary of the
workman since July, 2008. Allegedly, when the workman demanded
payment of the balance amount, he was assured that the same will be
paid if the workman runs into any emergency. Subsequently, the
workman was terminated on 28.08.2011 without any notice or reason,
and without payment of his salary balances which were withheld since
July, 2008. It was further alleged that the petitioner management had
taken the workman’s signatures on multiple blank documents and he
had not been paid his wages for August, 2011 as well.
3. By the impugned award, the learned Labour Court decided the
dispute in favour of the workman. After appraising the evidence on
record, the learned Labour Court rejected the petitioner’s defence of
there being no employer-employee relation and found that such a
relation had been established on the basis of preponderance of
probabilities. It was found that the workman was terminated in
violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
However, considering that no material was put forth by the workman
that he had made a sincere attempt at getting a job, a lump-sum
compensation of ₹1.5 lakhs was awarded to him in lieu of
reinstatement. It was further directed that interest at the rate of 9% per
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:01:38
W.P.(C) 4091/2016 Page 2 of 12

annum will be payable to the workman in case the amount is not paid
within one month of the award being passed.
4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ
petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner was a very small firm with limited employees and the same
was closed in the year 2016. He submitted that although the workman
was hired as an independent contractor for loading up kerosene on a
few occasions in the years 2004, 2006 and 2010-2011, however, such
engagements were on temporary basis and he was never employed by
the petitioner.
6. He submitted that the entire case set up by the workman is false
and there are significant inconsistencies in the evidence of the
workman in relation to his wages as well. He submitted that no
credible document was adduced by the workman to establish the
employer-employee relation and he cannot be deemed to be an
employee merely because the petitioner has been mentioned as an
employer on a gate pass that was issued only to allow access/entry.
7. He submitted that the learned Labour Court failed to appreciate
that the workman had not proved the employer-employee relation and
even if the gate passes are found to be credible, the same does not
show that the minimum threshold of 240 days of continuous work in a
year is met. He further submitted that the petitioner’s assertion of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:01:38
W.P.(C) 4091/2016 Page 3 of 12

workman offering his services with his own vehicle are corroborated
by the fact that the workman has admitted the ownership of the
vehicle. He submitted that the same shows that the workman was not
merely driving the vehicle but his vehicle was taken for transport.
8. Per contra , the learned counsel for the workman submitted that
the impugned award suffers from no infirmity and the learned Labour
Court has adequately assessed the material on record as well as the
assertions of the petitioner before finding that an employer-employee
relationship existed between the parties. She relied on Exhibits
WW1/6 (letter dated 03.12.2004 written by management for
temporary permission), WW1/8 (ID card of the workman), WW1/11
(experience certificate issued by management) and WW1/12 (ID card
of the workman) to buttress the assertion that an employer-employee
relation existed between the parties.
ANALYSIS
9. At the outset, it is relevant to note that the petitioner has
invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Interference in exercise of
writ jurisdiction is only warranted when the order suffers patent
illegality, perversity or an error apparent on the face of the record. If a
view adopted by the Labour Court is possible and reasonable, this
Court ought not substitute the same even if an alternative view exits. It
is not open to this Court to take on the role of an Appellate Court and
delve into re-appreciation of evidence. That is however not to say that
this Court is precluded from assessing the material on record to
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:01:38
W.P.(C) 4091/2016 Page 4 of 12

discern whether there is manifest perversity or patent illegality in
findings of the Labour Court.
10. The petitioner has contested that Respondent No.2 was only
engaged on certain occasions on a temporary basis, and he was never
employed by the petitioner so as to entitle him to any relief.
11. Thus, the present case is one where the entire dispute rests
essentially on determination of whether there was a valid employer-
employee relationship between the parties and if the workman was
employed with the petitioner for over 240 continuous days. This is so
because the finding of illegal termination in this case is hedged on
violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the
requirements prescribed in the aforesaid provision only need to be
complied if the workman has completed 240 days of continuous
service in the year preceding the termination order.
12. Before proceedings further, it is imperative to appreciate that
the onus to establish that the employer-employee relationship existed
for more than 240 continuous days rests on the workman making such
an assertion in the event of denial of such a fact by management [Ref.
Essen Deinki v. Rajiv Kumar : 2003 SCC (L&S) 13 ]. Reliance in this
regard can be made to the decision of another Bench of this Court in
Chander Sain v. J.B. Garments : 2009 SCC OnLine Del 905 , where
bald assertions of concerned workmen were found to be insufficient to
carve out an employer-employee relation and it was held as under:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:01:38
W.P.(C) 4091/2016 Page 5 of 12

“ 8 … There is no dispute about the fact that primarily the onus is
on the petitioners/workmen to establish that there exists a
relationship of employer and employees between the parties. No
presumption on this score can be drawn. The said relationship of
employer and employees can be established by the petitioners
only by a positive evidence like letter of appointment, wage slip or
contribution which is made from the salary/wage of the workmen to
ESI to the Provident Fund Commissioner. In the instant case, none
of such documents or proofs has been produced by the petitioners.
The petitioners have not examined any co-workers who would have
testified in their favour.
9. On the contrary, all the workmen, who have testified on
affidavits and have been cross examined, they had admitted in their
cross examination that they were not in a position to produce any
document to establish the relationship of employer and employees
between the parties. The documents which have been adduced by
the petitioners are the complaints purported to have been made by
the petitioners to the police authorities. These complaints which
are made by the petitioners to the police authorities can hardly be
said to be documents to establish the relationship of employer and
employees between the parties. They are in the nature of self-
serving documents. These documents at best can only show the
contemporaneous conduct of a party in law in the given facts and
circumstances of a case and these documents can hardly be of any
assistance to the petitioners to discharge that initial onus to
establish the relationship of employer and employees between the
parties which lies squarely on the petitioners. Since the initial onus
to establish the relationship of employer and employees between
the parties has not been discharged by the petitioners,
consequently the said onus never got shifted on to the
respondent/management to establish the fact that there existed no
relationship of employer and employees between the parties.
Reliance in this regard is being placed on the following judgments
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court: Workmen of Nilgiri Coop. Mkt.
Society Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Kanpur Electricity Supply
Co. Ltd. v. Shamim Mirza, 2008 (4) SCALE 604. ”
(emphasis supplied)
13. Adverting to a catena of judgments, in the case of Ranjeet v.
Delhi Jal Board : 2024 SCC OnLine Del 136 , a different Bench of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:01:38
W.P.(C) 4091/2016 Page 6 of 12

this Court decided against the workman on finding that no proof was
produced to show that the workman had worked for 240 days. The
relevant observations made in the said case are as under:
“35. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Essen Deinki v.
Rajiv Kumar; 2003 SCC (L&S) 13 observed that the responsibility
to prove 240 days of work rests with the employee in case there is
any dispute regarding this fact. The relevant portion of the said
judgment has been reproduced herein:
“16. The proof of working for 240 days is stated to be on
the employee in the event of any denial of such a factum
and it is on this score that this Court in Range Forest
Officer V. S.T.Hadimani, was pleased to state as below:
"In our opinion the Tribunal was right in placing the
onus on the management without first determining
on the basis of cogent evidence that the respondent
had worked for more than 240days in the year
preceding his termination. It was the case of the
claimant that he had worked but this claim was
denied by the appellant. It was then for the claimant
to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked
for 240 days in the year preceding his termination.
Filing of an affidavit is only his own statement in his
favour and that cannot be regarded as sufficient
evidence for any court or tribunal to come to the
conclusion that a workan had, in fact, worked for
240 days in a year. No proof of receipt of salary or
wages for 240 days or order or record of
appointment or engagement for this period was
produced by the workman. On this ground alone, the
award is liable to be set aside."”
36. In the case of Kamal Center Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs L.C.
Indl. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Rohtak&Others. 1994 II LLJ
1005 , the High Court of Punjab and Haryana observed that any
worker not having completed 240 days of services doesn't have any
right under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The relevant portion
of the judgment is as under:-
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:01:38
W.P.(C) 4091/2016 Page 7 of 12

"The Industrial workers who do not complete 240 days of
service have no industrial rights under the Act and cannot,
therefore, avail of the machinery provided under the Act
for the settlement of their disputes. The policy of the Act a
distinction between those with service of 240 days and
more and other with less. It was not necessary for the
management in the present case to comply with the
provisions of Section 25(H) of the Act before dispensing
with the service of the workman as be admitted less than,
240 days of service".
37. In the case of Ram Gopal Saini Vs. The Judge,Labour Court
No. 2 Jaipur and Others, 2001 LLR 747 , the petitioner had not
completed 240 days of work in a calendar year and therefore the
case was not in compliance with Section 25-F of the Act. The
relevant portion of the aforesaid judgement is reproduced
hereunder:
"The petitioner has not completed days of working in a
calendar year, Therefore compliance of Section 25-F of
the Act was not required in the instant case."
38. In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of
Rajasthan [(2004) 8 SCC 161] the position was again reiterated in
para 6 as follows:
“ It was the case of the workman that he had worked for
more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was
denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead
evidence to show that he had in fact worked up to 240 days
in the year preceding his termination. He has filed an
affidavit. It is only his own statement which is in his favour
and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any
court or tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the
claimant had worked for 240 days in a year. These aspects
were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani
[(2002) 3 SCC 25]. No proof of receipt of salary or wages
for 240 days or order or record in that regard was
produced. Mere non-production of the muster roll for a
particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court
to hold that the workman had worked for 240 days as
claimed.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:01:38
W.P.(C) 4091/2016 Page 8 of 12

39. In case titled RBI v. S. Mani, [(2005) 5 SCC 100 ] a three-
Judge Bench of this Court again considered the matter and held
that the initial burden of proof was on the workman to show that he
had completed 240 days of service. The learned Labour Court’s
view that the burden was on the employer was held to be
erroneous.
40. Similarly, in the case of Municipal Corpn., Faridabad v. Siri
Niwas, [(2004) 8 SCC 195 ] it was held that the burden was on the
workman to show that he was working for more than 240 days in
the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment.
41. In the instant case, despite the workman’s best efforts to
portray that there has been a violation of Section 25G and 25H of
the Act, he has failed to prove that he was engaged from 1994 to
2002 on muster roll and that he has completed 240 days of service
in a calendar year, prior to his termination. Moreover, the
petitioner has failed to bring on record any document supporting
his argument that he worked for 240 days.”
14. In this case, the onus of proof on workman has been explicitly
acknowledged by the learned Labour Court. Undisputedly, no wage
slips or letter of appointment were placed on record by the workman,
despite which, the learned Labour Court was persuaded to find that an
employer-employee relation was made out on the basis of certain
ancillary documents. The learned Labour Court was also weighed by
the fact that the management had not pleaded in its written
submissions regarding the workman having been engaged as a
contractor. The workman had relied extensively on certain ID cards,
which were admitted by the management albeit with the caveat that
the same were only for temporary periods. Even if it is ignored that the
exhibits WW1/10 and WW1/12 (ID cards) were objected against as
they were photocopies, it is apparent that the same were only for
limited periods. Though the said cards mention the petitioner as the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:01:38
W.P.(C) 4091/2016 Page 9 of 12

employer of the workman, such Identity Cards issued by a third party
cannot alone further the case of the workman in absence of cogent
proof of continued employment. Perusal of the evidence of MW1 also
makes it clear that only temporary permissions were requested by the
management which appear to be only for ensuring access.
15. Furthermore, much emphasis is laid that the workman owned
the vehicle whose number is mentioned in Ex. WW1/10 (one of the ID
cards) and he was only hired as a contractor when he offered his
services. The learned Labour Court heavily relied on statement made
by the workman on 17.10.2015 that though loan against said vehicle
was taken in his name, however, amount left after discharging loan
liabilities upon sale of vehicle remained with proprietor of the firm.
The workman further asserted that the vehicle was purchased in his
name as he was working as a driver. Though the learned Labour Court
found that there was no complete explanation in this regard in
evidence affidavit of MW1, however, the entire premise of a small
firm buying a vehicle in name of its employee instead in name of the
firm or a proprietor appears to be ex facie implausible and
unbelievable. Even though the learned Labour Court noted that the
workman only gained ownership of the vehicle in March, 2011 and
there was no question of him owning the tanker in the year 2010, it
cannot be ignored that the vehicle was financed in the name of the
workman himself.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:01:38
W.P.(C) 4091/2016 Page 10 of 12

16. The only damning document that could evidence continuous
employment is WW1/11, which is an experience letter admittedly
bearing stamp and letter head of petitioner management. The said
document is however under significant doubt as MW1 has explicitly
denied that any experience letter was issued to the workman and also
denied knowledge about whether the same is signed by the authorised
signatory of management. This document even otherwise does not
inspire confidence. It is not explained as to why or in what
circumstances the said document came to be issued prior to the
workman’s purported termination, which renders the same suspect. In
such circumstances, as the workman’s case is unsupported by any
wage slips and there appears to be merit in assertion of the
management that he had only offered his services as evidenced by his
ownership of vehicle, this Court is of the opinion that the learned
Labour Court has erroneously found that an employer-employee
relation existed between the parties. It is imperative to note that no
specific deference is paid by the learned Labour Court to the tenure of
the workman at all which is a pre-requisite for violation of Section
25F of the Act. There is also a flagrant inconsistency in the
workman’s evidence qua quantum of wage as well, which have been
unjustifiably brushed aside by the learned Labour Court.
17. Though there are gaps in evidence of the management qua
record of tanker services availed by them as well as prior engagement
of the workman by them for certain periods, on a holistic appraisal of
the facts of the present case, as the workman himself has failed to
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:01:38
W.P.(C) 4091/2016 Page 11 of 12

discharge onus of proof on him, he can derive no benefit from the
same.
18. On the threshold of preponderance of probabilities, the case of
the petitioner that the workman was contractually hired intermittently
as and when required to transfer kerosene in his truck wins favour of
this Court. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court considers it
apposite to set aside the impugned award.
19. The present petition is accordingly allowed. Pending application
also stands disposed of.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
SEPTEMBER 8, 2026
“SS”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:01:38
W.P.(C) 4091/2016 Page 12 of 12