Burden of Proof Rests on Workman to Establish Employer-Employee Relationship Through Cogent Documentary Evidence.

The petitioner, Hari Shankar, filed a writ petition challenging the Labour Court Award dated 06.02.2019, which dismissed his claim for reinstatement and back wages

The petitioner alleged he worked as a "Sample-man" for the respondent-management from 2002 to 2010 but was terminated without notice or retrenchment compensation upon demanding statutory benefits

To prove the employer-employee relationship, the petitioner relied on a list of 62 employees submitted to ESI and certain gate passes

The management denied any such relationship

The Labour Court found that the petitioner failed to prove he was an employee, leading to the current challenge

1. Whether the petitioner successfully discharged the burden of proof to establish an employer-employee relationship with the respondent-management

2. Whether the findings of the Labour Court suffered from perversity, patent illegality, or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution

The court applied the principle that the burden of proving an employer-employee relationship lies squarely on the workman through substantive evidence rather than mere assertions

Regarding the scope of judicial review, the court relied on Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan, establishing that the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 is supervisory, not appellate; it cannot interfere with findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence

The Court observed that the petitioner failed to provide primary documentary evidence of employment. Specifically, the ESI list of 62 employees relied upon by the petitioner did not actually contain his name

Furthermore, the gate passes produced were unstamped and insufficient to establish a legal employment contract, proving at most mere access to the premises

The Court noted that the testimonies of the petitioner's witnesses (official record keepers) were ineffective because they admitted to having no personal knowledge of his actual employment

Since the management issued a categorical denial and the petitioner’s oral and documentary evidence failed to establish foundational facts, the Court determined there was no perversity in the Labour Court’s appreciation of evidence

The Court held that since the Labour Court’s findings were based on a reasonable appreciation of evidence, there was no ground for interference under supervisory jurisdiction

Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and the impugned Award dated 06.02.2019 was upheld