Burden of proving employer-employee relationship lies on workman; missing primary evidence precludes interference in writ jurisdiction.

The petitioners, claiming to be "nurse orderlies" directly employed by Respondent No. 1 (Hospital) since 2010 and 2017 respectively.

They alleged that the Hospital used contractors as a "sham" to deny them permanent benefits.

They claimed their services were illegally terminated in early 2022 after they refused to pay a bribe to a new contractor (Respondent No. 3) to retain their jobs.

The Labour Court, vide awards dated 04.12.2023, dismissed their claims for reinstatement, finding no evidence of a direct employer-employee relationship with Respondent No. 1.

The petitioners moved the High Court challenging these awards.

Whether the petitioners established an employer-employee relationship with Respondent No. 1 to qualify as "workmen" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Whether the findings of the Labour Court were perverse or lacked evidentiary support, warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Court applied the burden of proof principle established in Workmen of Nilgiri Coop. Mkt. Society Ltd. v. State of T.N., holding that the person asserting an employer-employee relationship bears the burden of proving it.

It further relied on the doctrine of limited judicial review under Article 226 as articulated in Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan and Indian Overseas Bank v. I.O.B. Staff Canteen Workers' Union, which dictates that a Writ Court cannot act as an appellate court or re-appreciate evidence unless the lower court’s finding is "manifestly erroneous," "perverse," or based on "no evidence".

The Court observed that the petitioners failed to produce any appointment letters, salary slips, or attendance records linking them to Respondent No. 1.

On the contrary, the documents submitted by the petitioners—specifically a "temporary pass" and "E-Pehchan Card" (ESIC)—explicitly listed them as "contractual staff" or employees of the contractor (Respondent No. 2), not the Hospital.

The Court reasoned that since the petitioners provided no cogent documentary or oral evidence (such as co-worker testimony) to prove direct employment, the "onus of proof" never shifted to the Hospital to rebut the claims.

Consequently, the Labour Court’s findings were deemed to be based on a correct appreciation of facts rather than perversity.

The Court affirmed that it would not interfere with the factual findings of the Labour Court in the absence of any jurisdictional error or patent illegality.

The writ petitions were dismissed.