Onus shifts to management to rebut employer-employee relationship once workman produces prima facie documentary evidence.

The petitioner (workman) claimed employment as a "Spotter" since 1992 with the respondent-management (M/s Madhu Chawla Design Trend (P) Ltd.) at a monthly salary of Rs. 4,750/-

He alleged that his services were terminated without notice after he demanded legal benefits such as bonus and overtime

The respondent-management denied the employer-employee relationship, asserting that the workman was employed by a contractor, M/s B.M. Stitchcrafts

The Labour Court dismissed the claim on 13.12.2019, finding that the workman failed to establish the relationship

The workman challenged this Award via the present writ petition, relying on ESI cards, LIC receipts reflecting the management's address, and "Gate Passes"

1. Whether there existed an employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and respondent no. 3

2. Whether the Labour Court's Award was perverse or arbitrary due to failure to appreciate prima facie evidence and the shifting of the burden of proof

The Court applied the limited scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, which is confined to jurisdictional errors, breaches of natural justice, or perversity, as established in Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan and MCD v. Aasha Ram

Regarding the employer-employee relationship, the Court relied on the "control and supervision" test and the six-factor criteria established in Balwant Rai Saluja v. Air India Ltd. and Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. Mahendra Prasad Jakhmola, which include: who appoints, who pays salary, who has the authority to dismiss/discipline, continuity of service, and the extent of primary vs. secondary control

It further applied the principle that once a workman produces prima facie material, the onus shifts to the management to rebut the same using records in its possession

The Court found the Labour Court's findings perverse as it ignored significant prima facie evidence. The workman produced ESI cards and LIC receipts associated with the management’s address, as well as "Gate Passes" bearing the stamp of an allied entity (M/s Madhu Chawla Exports) operating from the same premises

The management admitted to depositing the workman's ESI and PF contributions under its own code—ostensibly on behalf of a contractor—but failed to produce any contract, bills raised by the contractor, or summon the contractor as a witness to prove this arrangement

The Court noted that the management witness admitted that other workmen's claims from the same site had been allowed and that the management exercised direct administration over statutory deductions

Consequently, the Court determined that the workman had discharged his initial burden, and the management failed to rebut it with documentary evidence, thereby establishing the relationship

Given the prolonged litigation and the "impracticability of reinstatement" at this late stage, the Court declined reinstatement and instead directed the respondent-management to pay a lump-sum compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- within four weeks. Failure to pay within the stipulated time would attract interest at 12% per annum. The petition was disposed of accordingly