Workman must prove employer-employee relationship and 240 days’ continuous service to invoke Section 25F.

The respondent-workman claimed that he had been employed by the petitioner as a driver since January 2003, that his wages had been withheld from July 2008, and that his services were terminated on 28 August 2011 without notice, reason, or compliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“ID Act”).

The petitioner denied any employer–employee relationship and asserted that the workman had only been engaged intermittently as an independent contractor for transporting kerosene in his own vehicle.

The Labour Court held, on a preponderance of probabilities, that an employer–employee relationship existed and that the termination violated Section 25F; instead of reinstatement, it awarded ₹1,50,000 as lump-sum compensation and ₹20,000 as litigation expenses.

The petitioner challenged that award in the present writ petition.

Whether the workman established the existence of an employer–employee relationship with the petitioner and proved that he had completed at least 240 days of continuous service preceding his termination, so as to attract Section 25F of the ID Act?

Whether the Labour Court’s finding that the workman was an employee and had been illegally terminated was perverse, legally untenable, or otherwise amenable to interference in writ jurisdiction?

Whether the documents relied upon by the workman—including identity cards, temporary permissions, and an experience certificate—were sufficient to establish continuous employment?

Section 25F of the ID Act requires compliance with prescribed safeguards before retrenchment of a workman who has completed the requisite period of continuous service, including 240 days in the preceding year.

The initial burden of proving the employer–employee relationship and completion of 240 days rests on the workman when those facts are denied by the management; a mere affidavit or bald assertion is insufficient.

The Court relied on Essen Deinki v. Rajiv Kumar, Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani, Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, RBI v. S. Mani, and Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas for this burden-of-proof principle.

It also relied on Chander Sain v. J.B. Garments, which held that the relationship ordinarily must be established through positive evidence such as an appointment letter, wage slips, or statutory contributions.

In exercising writ jurisdiction, the High Court does not reappreciate evidence as an appellate court, but may interfere where the decision suffers from patent illegality, perversity, or an error apparent on the face of the record.

The Court held that the workman failed to discharge the initial burden of proving both the employment relationship and 240 days of continuous service.

No appointment letter, wage slip, salary record, or other cogent proof of continuous employment was produced.

Although the identity cards mentioned the petitioner as employer, they were issued for limited periods and, being issued by a third party, did not establish continued employment; the temporary permissions appeared to concern access to the premises rather than regular employment.

The experience certificate was viewed with suspicion because the management denied issuing it, its authenticity was disputed, and the circumstances of its issuance were unexplained.

The workman’s ownership and financing of the tanker supported the petitioner’s case that he supplied transport services as an independent contractor, rather than working as a regular driver.

The Labour Court had also failed to give adequate consideration to the duration of service and had overlooked material inconsistencies in the workman’s evidence regarding his wages.

On a holistic assessment and applying the preponderance-of-probabilities standard, the Court found the petitioner’s version of intermittent contractual engagement more probable.

It held that the workman had not proved an employer–employee relationship or completion of 240 days of continuous service and, consequently, Section 25F of the ID Act was not attracted.

The Labour Court’s award was therefore set aside as legally unsustainable.

The writ petition was allowed, and the pending application was disposed of.