The onus to prove the existence of an employer-employee relationship lies with the petitioner, and the sufficiency of evidence is crucial in establishing this relationship.

1. These proceedings emanate from an industrial dispute, initiated by the petitioner and referred by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, for adjudication to the Labour Court, vide order dated 14th April, 1995, containing the following single term of reference :

“Whether services of Shri Madan S/o Shri Heera Lai have been illegally and/or unjustifiably terminated by the management and if yes, to what relief is he entitled?”

2. The petitioner, in his Statement of Claim before the Labour Court, contended that he had jointed the respondent, as permanent driver on 6th January, 1992, and had a clean service record. Even so, he contended, he had not been provided the benefits due to him and, on his insisting therefor, the respondent terminated his services on 6th September, 2011, after withholding his wages for the period August to September, 2011.

3. The petitioner sent a demand notice, dated 21st November, 2011, to the respondent, but, on finding no response forthcoming, initiated the present industrial dispute.

4. As is practically the norm in all such cases, the respondent, in its written statement before the Labour Court, denied the existence of any employer/employee relationship between the petitioner and itself. The petitioner, in rejoinder, reiterated his claim.

5. The following issues were framed, by the Labour Court, as arising for its consideration, on 28th January, 2013 :

“1. Whether there existed relationship of employer and employee between the workman and the management? OPW

2. As per terms of reference.

3. Relief”

6. The workman examined himself as WW1 and closed his evidence. The respondent examined Shri Krishan Kumar Sharma, Recovery Officer working in its office as MW1 and closed its evidence.

7. Needless to say, the depositions of the petitioner, as WW1 and Shri Krishan Kumar Sharma as MW1, reflected their respective stands as canvassed in the statement of claim and the written statement, with the petition asserting that he had been the employee of the respondent and the respondent insisting per contra.

8. Having taken into account the evidence before it, the Labour Court, vide the impugned award dated 23rd April, 2014, returned the following findings :

(i) The onus to prove existence of employer-employee relationship was on the workman, as held by the Supreme Court in Workmen of Nilgiri Co-operaive Marketing Society Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2004) 3 SCC 514.

(ii) The petitioner relied on the following evidence, to support the assertion that he was the employee of the respondent :

(a) a photograph depicting him on the driver seat in a car with Registration No.DL-7C F-2625,

(b) a photocopy of the insurance certificate of the said car, showing that the said car belonging to the respondent,

(c) a copy of his bank passbook, depicting his address as A-66, Guru Nanakpura, which, according to the petitioner, was the then existing address of the respondent, as mentioned on the copy of the visiting card, relied upon by him and exhibited as Ex.WW1/I, and

(d) his own deposition that Chander, Babloo, Surender and Rajiv were his co-employees under the respondent, read with the deposition of MW-1 to the effect that Surender and Babloo were, indeed, the respondent’s employees.

(iv) The workman had failed to place on record even his driving licence.

(v) The photograph, showing him on the driving seat of the car, even assuming the car belonging to the respondent, could not have established existence of employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and the respondent. MW1 had categorically denied, in his deposition, that the car was registered in the name of the respondent.

(vi) The address on the passbook was different from that on the visiting card, inasmuch as, on the visiting card, there was a reference to “first floor”, which was missing on the passbook. Even otherwise, the mere reflection of the address of the respondent on the passbook of the petitioner was insufficient to establish employer-employee rel