The burden of proof lies on the claimant to establish an employer-employee relationship, and the court will not interfere with the findings of a fact-finding authority unless there is a manifest error of law or breach of principles of natural justice.

Siddharth Mridul, J.

1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the award dated 20th May, 2005 passed by the Labour Court-VII, Delhi, whereby the Tribunal dismissed the claim of the petitioner without granting him any relief.

2. Briefly, the facts are that:

.(a) the petitioner claimed to be employed by the respondent as a Driver somewhere in the year 1995. The petitioner further claimed that he was not given any appointment letter by his employer; that he worked continuously with the respondent for four years till 15th December, 1998 when his services were terminated by the management without issuing any reason and without paying him retrenchment compensation or notice pay as required under law. He claimed that his termination was violative of the provisions of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that, therefore, he raised a dispute by sending a demand notice to the respondent through his counsel and also his trade union. The petitioner claimed that since the respondent did not reply to the demand notices, the petitioner approached the Department of Labour, Government of Delhi with his grievances. According to the petitioner, on the basis of his complaint the Labour Inspector visisted the respondent and tried to persuade the respondent to accede to the demand of the petitioner but to no avail. That the petitioner thereafter approached the Conciliation Officer but the matter could not be settled. Therefore, it was referred to the Industrial Adjudicator with the following terms of reference:

.Whether the service of Sh. Anand Prakash have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management, and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?

.(b) The claim was contested by the respondent. The respondent took a preliminary objection that, since there existed no relationship between the parties, as the petitioner was never recruited or appointed by the respondent, no question of termination of petitioners service arose.

.(c) On the pleadings of the parties the Industrial Adjudicator framed the following issues:

1. Whether there exists no employer and employee relationship between the parties?

2. As per terms of reference.

.(d) The petitioner in support of his case filed his own affidavit Ex. WW1/A alongwith certain documents Ex. WW1/1 to Ex. WW1/6. The petitioner was cross-examined at length by the respondent. The respondent in response to the evidence of the petitioner filed the affidavit of one Sh. Amrut Rath, who was DGM (Human Resources) at respondent-companys Corporate Office, Mumbai and was stated to have been exercising immediate overall administrative control over the working of the offices including Delhi Regional Office and employees working therein.

.(e) The deposition of the said Sh. Amrut Rath was as under:

I state that the facts stated by the management in its WS and by me in this affidavit are correct and those of the said Shri Anand Prakash as stated by him in SOC and affidavit in evidence are incorrect and unreliable. I state that except adhoc casual daily wagers whom a Regional Manager may engage to cope with unforeseen passing contingency in the office, all appointments in our company on substantive basis are made by the management at Head Office; the appointees are issued appointment letters by the Head Office. There have been 8 to 10 permanent muster roll employees of the company (working in Delhi Regional Office) whose names have been entered in the daily attendance register for marking attendance. Photocopies of the Attendance Register of Companys employee working in Delhi Office during the period 1997 to 2001 are Annexure 1 to this affidavit and I can produce the original of the same if required by the Honble Court. The said Shri Anand Prakash herein had never been employed by the company and he never worked as a muster roll employee in the companys Delhi Regional Office. I state that all employees of th