Facts
The petitioners, claiming to be "nurse orderlies" directly employed by Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital (Respondent No. 1) since 2010 and 2017 respectively, alleged that they were purposefully engaged through contractors to deny them permanent employment benefits.
Source reference: p. 2, para. 4They contended that following a change in contractors in 2022, they were illegally terminated for refusing to pay a kickback of Rs. 30,000 demanded by the new contractor (Respondent No. 3).
Source reference: p. 3, para. 6The Labour Court-IV, Rouse Avenue, vide awards dated 04.12.2023, dismissed their claims due to a lack of documentary evidence proving a direct employer-employee relationship with Respondent No. 1.
Source reference: p. 2, para. 2The petitioners moved the High Court challenging these awards.
Source reference: no citationIssues
Whether the petitioners established an employer-employee relationship with Respondent No. 1 to maintain a claim of illegal termination.
Source reference: p. 4, para. 10Whether the High Court, under Article 226, can interfere with the factual findings of a Labour Court regarding the existence of an employment relationship.
Source reference: p. 10, para. 17-18Law Applied
The court applied Sections 10(1) and 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, regarding the reference of disputes.
Source reference: p. 1-2, para. 2It relied on the precedent in Workmen of Nilgiri Coop. Mkt. Society Ltd. v. State of T.N., establishing that the burden of proof lies on the person asserting the existence of an employer-employee relationship and that such a determination is a pure question of fact.
Source reference: p. 10, para. 17Furthermore, it applied the principles from Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan and Indian Overseas Bank v. I.O.B. Staff Canteen Workers' Union, which restrict the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 to correcting errors of law or jurisdiction, prohibiting the re-appreciation of evidence unless the lower court's finding is perverse or based on "no evidence".
Source reference: p. 11-13, para. 19Reasoning
The Court observed that the petitioners failed to produce appointment letters, salary slips, or testimony from co-workers to prove direct employment by the hospital.
Source reference: p. 4, para. 10Contrarily, the documents submitted by the petitioners—a temporary pass, ESIC E-Pehchan card, and EPFO passbook—explicitly identified them as "contractual staff" or employees of the contractor (Respondent No. 2), not the hospital.
Source reference: p. 7-9, para. 14-15The Court reasoned that since the petitioners failed to meet the initial burden of proof, the onus never shifted to the management to disprove the relationship.
Source reference: p. 6, para. 13Adhering to the doctrine of judicial restraint in writ jurisdiction, the Court found no perversity in the Labour Court’s findings, as they were based on a detailed appreciation of the available evidence.
Source reference: p. 9-10, para. 16-18Holding
The Court held that there was no employer-employee relationship between the petitioners and Respondent No. 1, and the Labour Court’s findings were neither arbitrary nor unsupported by evidence.
Consequently, the High Court cannot act as an appellate court to re-examine factual disputes.
Source reference: p. 13, para. 16The writ petitions were dismissed, affirming the Labour Court awards dated 04.12.2023.
Source reference: p. 15, para. 20Original Court PDF
Brijmohan v. M/S Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital & Ors. [W.P.(C) 2140/2026] and Sukhdev v. M/S Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital & Ors. [W.P.(C) 2157/2026]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in