1. The employer-Tekchand questions the Labour Court award dated 8 June 2006 ('impugned award') which holds that termination of the workman-Tribhuvandas' service with effect from 7 October 1993 is illegal and directs his reinstatement with full back-wages and continuity of service.

2. Tribhuvandas claims that he was employed as a Tailor with M/s. Vikas Garments, M/s. Vikas Fashions and M/s. Prakash Garments, proprietary concerns of Tekchand, which were engaged in manufacturer of readymade garments. On 7 October 1993, when Tribhuvandas reported for work, he was physically prevented from even entering into the work premises and told by Tekchand that his employment 'stands terminated'. By this date, Tribhuvandas had completed over three years employment with Tekchand. Around the same time, Tekchand, in a similar fashion 'orally terminated' services of almost 19 workers, 11 of whom are respondents in the connected writ petitions. Tekchand, on his part, has completely denied ever having employed Tribhuvandas, or for that matter 11 other workmen in his factory. Tekchand says that there is no 'employer-employee relationship' and therefore, he is not at all concerned with the workers in these batch of petitions.

3. By letter dated 1 November 1993, Tribhuvadas protested against the treatment meted out to him and demanded reinstatement. As there was no response, by the justification statement dated 8 November 1993, Tribhuvandas raised an industrial dispute. The machinery of conciliation was set into motion. Tekchand claims to have sent some reply, but participated no further. Upon conciliation proceedings ending in failure, the appropriate Government, in exercise of powers under Section 10 read with Section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“said Act”) made a reference to the Labour Court, resulting in the impugned award.

4. Mr. Mahendra Agvekar and Mr. Rajesh Gehani, learned counsels for the employer-Tekchand attacked the impugned award on the following grounds:

(A) That the Labour Court incorrectly placed the burden of proving 'employer-employee relationship' upon employer-Tekchand ;

(B) There is no evidence whatsoever on record to establish that Tribhuvandas was indeed an employee of Tekchand. The finding to the contrary, is vitiated by 'perversity';

(C) The Labour Court has made reference to documents/material which were not a part of the record. There is, accordingly, clear non-application of mind which vitiates the impugned award;

(D) Without prejudice, there is no material on record that Tribhuvandas had put in 240 days service in the year preceding the alleged date of termination. The burden of establishing this fact was solely upon Tribhuvandas, who has miserably failed to discharge the same. In absence of any proof as to such jurisdictional fact, the Labour Court erred in invoking the provisions of Section 25-F of the said Act.

5. Mr. Mandavia, learned counsel for the Tribhuvandas, at the outset, submitted that Tekchand has been far from candid with the Court and therefore ought to be dis-entitled to invoke the extra ordinary and equitable jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In any case, the counsel submitted that the Labour Court has recorded findings of fact which derive support from the material on record. There is neither any perversity nor non-application of mind, in the matter of record of such findings of fact. Accordingly, the counsel urged, that Tekchand had made out no case to warrant judicial review.

6. The counsels did make attempt to argue on the aspect of compliance or otherwise of the interim orders made by this Court in these batch of petitions in the context of motion under Section 17B of the said Act. The counsels for Tekchand complained that despite offer of work, the workmen refused to report for duties. Likewise, counsel for workmen complained that despite the workmen reporting for duties, Tekchand offered them no work. These are seriously disputed questi