Burden of proving employer-employee relationship rests on the workman and cannot be shifted by rejecting management's defense.

The respondent-workman, Sh. Abdul Hafeez Khan, alleged his services as a Technician at a CNG station were illegally terminated by the Petitioner (IGL) on 20.08.2002

IGL contested the claim, asserting no employer-employee relationship existed as the respondent was engaged through an independent contractor, M/s Mahajan Enterprises

The Labour Court, vide Award dated 19.02.2011, directed reinstatement with compensation, finding an employer-employee relationship established despite the workman failing to produce direct documentary evidence of employment

IGL challenged this Award via a writ petition, arguing the burden of proof was erroneously shifted

1. Whether the reference was without jurisdiction on the ground that the Central Government, and not the State Government, was the "appropriate Government"

2. Whether an employer-employee relationship existed between IGL and the respondent-workman

3. Whether the respondent-workman had completed 240 days of continuous service to entitle him to protection under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

The Court applied Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act regarding the "appropriate government" and Sections 25-B and 25-F regarding continuous service and conditions for retrenchment

It relied on Workmen of Nilgiri Coop. Mkt. Society Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, which establishes that the burden of proving an employer-employee relationship lies on the person asserting it

The Court followed Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani, mandating that the workman must produce cogent evidence to prove 240 days of continuous service

the indicia of employment (appointment power, wage payment, disciplinary control) as defined in Balwant Rai Saluja v. Air India Ltd.

The Court found the Labour Court's reasoning flawed as it inverted the burden of proof. While the Labour Court rightly rejected IGL's contractor defense due to the post-dated operating agreement, it erroneously inferred direct employment merely from the failure of that defense and the respondent's physical presence at the CNG station

The High Court noted that the workman admitted to having no appointment letter, pay slips, or PF records from IGL

Per Nilgiri Coop., the management's failure to produce records does not automatically prove the workman's case; the workman must first discharge the initial burden of proof

the Labour Court failed to independently evaluate the evidence for "240 days of service," instead treating it as a consequence of the employment finding, which violates the standards set in S.T. Hadimani

The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the Labour Court’s Award dated 19.02.2011