The burden of proof in establishing an employer-employee relationship rests on the party asserting its existence, and admissibility of documents as evidence requires proper proof and comparison with originals. The court must weigh the interest of justice against private interest and should not grant relief based on misleading or inaccurate statements.

1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the award dated 11.07.2012 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.XVI, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in I.D. No.33/2010, wherein the Labour Court held the respondent to be the employee of the petitioner and his termination to be illegal, consequently, awarded a lump-sum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh) in lieu of reinstatement and back wages to the petitioner.

2. Brief facts of the case as borne out from the petition are that an industrial dispute was raised by the respondent and on a reference made by the appropriate government, statement of claim dated 16.03.2010 was filed by the respondent before the learned Labour Court. In his statement of claim, the respondent alleged that he was appointed as Recovery Officer and Field Staff by the petitioner w.e.f. 01.03.2003 and his last drawn salary was Rs.4,500/- (Rupees Four thousand five hundred) per month. The respondent was also promised 1% commission on sales of the petitioner but the same was never given. It was further alleged therein that on 12.07.2009, his services were terminated by the petitioner after withholding his earned wages of August 2007. While terminating his services, the petitioner did not serve a notice of termination on him. Neither was he paid any compensation and legal dues nor was any inquiry conducted at that time.

3. To the said statement of claim, the petitioner filed its reply dated 13.09.2010 wherein the petitioner denied all the allegations made by the respondent. It was also stated therein by the petitioner that the respondent was not their employee, rather the respondent was working as a freelance ferrywala in the local market and whenever he used to bring customers to the petitioner’s establishment, he used to get commission on the sales. Thereafter, the evidences were adduced by both the parties and the parties were heard leading to the passing of the impugned award dated 11.07.2012.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned award was passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice, fair play and rule of law. The documents exhibited as Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/14, as produced by the respondent were allowed to be taken on record at the stage of evidence that too without any application to that effect by the respondent and without recording any reason for doing so. The same were, thereafter, allowed to be read in evidence without being formally or legally proved. The originals of the said documents were never produced. The observation of the learned Presiding Officer with respect to the appointment letter as allegedly issued by the petitioner to the respondent (exhibited as Ex.WW1/8) is perverse. In his cross-examination, MW1 had only stated that the letter head of Ex.WW1/8 belongs to the management but he had not signed it at point A which was incorrectly assessed by the learned Presiding Officer that the respondent had proved the document Ex.WW1/8 by producing its original. In fact the respondent did not discharge even his initial burden of proving the alleged appointment letter and as such the burden never shifted on the petitioner to prove that the said document was not issued by him and that it does not bear his signatures.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that it has been a consistent stand of the respondent in his alleged letter of demand dated 15.09.2010, in the conciliation proceedings, statement of claims and even in his evidence by way of affidavit that no appointment letter was ever issued to him by the petitioner. The respondent has also admitted in his cross-examination that no letter of appointment was issued by the petitioner.

6. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that from a mere admission of the petitioner that the photocopies of the bills (Ex.WW1/9 and WW1/10) were that of the bill forms of the petitioner, a relation o