Workman’s failure to produce documentary evidence or ESI records precludes establishment of employer-employee relationship.

The petitioner/workman claimed he was employed by the respondent-management as a "Stitching Master" from 16.10.1998 until his services were allegedly terminated without notice or compensation on 15.05.2010

The respondent denied any employer-employee relationship

The Labour Court dismissed the workman's claim on 07.02.2019, holding that he failed to establish the existence of the employment relationship

The petitioner challenged this award before the Delhi High Court via a writ petition, asserting that the Labour Court overlooked documentary evidence, specifically a list of 62 employees submitted for ESI Smart Forms

Whether the findings of the Labour Court regarding the absence of an employer-employee relationship were perverse or based on a misreading of evidence, warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

The Court applied the principles governing the scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 226, noting that the High Court does not act as an appellate authority but may interfere if findings are perverse

It relied on Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan & Ors. to define the limits of judicial review

Regarding the burden of proof, the Court held that while the initial burden lies on the workman, it is not "beyond doubt"; once a prima facie case is made, the onus shifts to the management

For determining the employment relationship, the Court cited Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. Mahendra Prasad Jakhmola & Ors. and Balwant Rai Saluja v. Air India Ltd., emphasizing the "control and supervision" test involving factors such as appointment authority, payment of wages, power to dismiss, and continuity of service

The High Court examined the evidence produced by the petitioner to determine if the Labour Court’s conclusion was sustainable. The petitioner’s primary evidence was a list of 62 employees submitted to the ESI on 05.11.2009 (Mark ‘B’)

However, upon perusal of the record, the Court found that the petitioner's name was conspicuously absent from this list

Since the petitioner failed to produce any other documentary material or statutory records to demonstrate that the respondent paid his wages or exercised "primary control" over his work, the Court found he had failed to discharge even the initial burden of proof

Under the multi-factor test established in Balwant Rai Saluja, the absence of the claimant’s name from official employee lists and the lack of wage records meant the "control and supervision" criteria remained unmet

Consequently, the impugned Award dated 07.02.2019 was upheld, and the writ petition was dismissed