The burden of proof to establish an employer-employee relationship lies with the employee, and the court's interference in such disputes is limited to cases of perversity or lack of supporting evidence.

JUDGMENT

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J. - This intra court appeal is at the instance of the writ petitioner and is directed against an order dated august 18, 2011 passed by a learned Single Judge in WP No. 20403 (W) of 2010. By the order impugned the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition upon holding that there is no illegality with the award passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal.

2. Respondent no. 9, claiming to be a workman, raised a dispute by a representation dated 17.05.1993 before the Labour Department, Government of West Bengal which was referred to the tribunal being Reference Case No. VIII-46/95 for adjudication of the issue whether termination of the respondent no. 9 is justified and the reliefs which he may be entitled to.

3. The respondent no. 9 in his written statement before the Tribunal stated that he joined M/s. Weather Control on 1st april, 1992 as a window/ room cooler mechanic but no formal appointment letter was issued to him. all of a sudden on March 17, 1993 while the respondent no. 9 attended his duty, the proprietor of M/s. Weather Control orally terminated his service without assigning any reason therefor. It was specifically stated that no chargesheet was issued to him and no disciplinary proceeding was held. Such termination was made illegally in contravention of the statutory provisions of the Industrial Disputes act (for short 'the ID act') and in violation of the principles of natural justice. The respondent no. 9 through various written representations objected to such illegal termination from service and since the appellant made no response, the respondent no. 9 raised dispute before the Labour Department by a representation dated May 17, 1993. Such dispute gave rise to the reference case being no. VIII-46/95.

4. The appellant contested the said reference case by filing a written statement denying the material allegations contained in the written statement filed by the respondent no. 9.The appellant claims to be a proprietorship firm carrying on business of maintenance, service and repairs of air conditioners, air coolers etc. The appellant entered into contracts for maintenance, servicing and repairing of air conditioners and air coolers with various government concerns. The appellant used to secure persons from other firms including M/s. Cold Draft for getting some of the contractual job performed. M/s. Cold Draft used to receive payments from the appellant after raising bills. The appellant, further, claims that M/s. Cold Draft used to generally send Mihir Kumar Pal i.e., the respondent no. 9 herein for executing the jobs. The respondent no. 9 used to get his salary from his employer namely M/s. Cold Draft. The respondent no. 9 with a mala fide intention wrote letters to the appellant alleging that he was their employee since april 1, 1992. The respondent no. 9 made a false complaint to the assistant Labour Commissioner, Govt. of West Bengal with a request that he may be reinstated in service and for compensation for unlawful termination.

5. The learned Tribunal by the impugned award held that the termination is bad, illegal and unjustified. However, the learned Tribunal instead of passing an order for reinstatement directed the appellant to pay compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs to the respondent no. 9 within the time limit specified in the said award.

6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid award the appellant challenged the same before the learned Single Judge by filing an application under article 226 of the Constitution of India being WP No. 20403 (W) of 2010. The learned Single Judge by the judgment and order dated august 18, 2011 dismissed the said writ petition. Being aggrieved, the writ petitioner preferred the instant appeal.

7. Mr. Dey, learned advocate for the appellant contended that since the employer-employee relationship is disputed, onus lies upon the respondent no. 9 to prove such relationship. He contended that the respondent no. 9 could not produce any docu