Burden of Proving Lawful Appointment and Employer-Employee Relationship Rests Solely Upon the Claimant-Workman.

The workmen claimed engagement as Mates, Beldars, Chowkidars and Security Guards in DDA's Engineering Divisions from 1982, regularisation in 1985, and oral discontinuance of services around 1990 without charge-sheet, domestic enquiry, notice pay or retrenchment compensation; they sought reinstatement with back wages and consequential benefits.

The DDA's consistent defence was that the workmen were never lawfully appointed, having entered service on forged and fabricated transfer/relieving orders; FIR No. 42/1990 was registered at P.S. Trilok Puri, CBI FIR No. RC-IIIS/92-Delhi dated 20.09.1992 was recorded, and service records were seized on 18.09.1992, rendering the alleged appointments void ab initio.

Labour Court-XIX, in LIR No. 574/2006 (the Bhan Prakash Sharma batch), by award dated 07.12.2010, directed reinstatement with full back wages and liberty to hold a post-reinstatement enquiry, while every other Labour Court (in the Jai Prakash, Sushil Kumar, Rambir Singh, Jagpal Sharma, Bhanwar Pal Singh and Ishwar Singh batches) dismissed the claims, holding that no valid employer-employee relationship was established.

1. Whether the initial burden of proving the existence of a lawful employer-employee relationship rested upon the workmen or upon the management (DDA) alleging forged induction.

2. Whether the workmen discharged the initial burden of establishing a valid employer-employee relationship by cogent evidence.

3. Whether the award dated 07.12.2010 passed by Labour Court-XIX in Bhan Prakash Sharma suffers from perversity warranting interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The initial burden of proving an employer-employee relationship lies on the person asserting it, relying on Workmen of Nilgiri Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2004) 3 SCC 514, Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani, (2002) 3 SCC 25 (self-serving affidavits insufficient), and R.M. Yellatti v. Assistant Executive Engineer, (2006) 1 SCC 106 (burden discharged only by cogent oral and documentary evidence).

Where appointment is alleged to be forged, the burden lies on the claimant to prove genuineness.

Mere marking of an exhibit does not constitute proof of contents, per Sait Tarajee Khimchand v. Yelamarti Satyam, (1972) 4 SCC 562 and LIC of India v. Ram Pal Singh Bisen, (2010) 4 SCC 491.

Interference under certiorari only for perversity, no-evidence findings, or errors of law apparent on the face of the record, per Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan, AIR 1964 SC 477.

Because the DDA disputed the very genesis of employment, the workmen were first required to prove lawful induction before any question of retrenchment, domestic enquiry or Section 25F compliance could arise.

The Court found the foundational period wholly undocumented: no appointment order, joining report, muster roll, attendance or wage record for the claimed 1982 appointment; no order or record whatsoever evidencing the pleaded 1985 regularisation; and the entire documentary edifice (service books, PF records, salary registers, transfer orders) commencing only after the disputed 1987 transfer orders, rendering such documents proof at best of subsequent continuance, not lawful entry.

Labour Court-XIX committed a manifest error of law by reversing the burden — requiring management to prove forgery before the workmen proved employment, treating post-induction records as proof of lawful appointment, and directing reinstatement followed by an enquiry on the erroneous assumption of an existing employer-employee relationship.

Accordingly, W.P.(C) 3938/2011 (DDA's petition) was allowed and the award dated 07.12.2010 in LIR No. 574/2006 was set aside; W.P.(C) Nos. 1594/2007, 6900/2012, 2858/2015, 612/2015, 8086/2016 and 5304/2023 (workmen's petitions) were dismissed as devoid of merit.