An employer-employee relationship exists when the following four circumstances are present: * The authority which has made the appointment. * The source from which the salary/remuneration emanates. * Control of the employer over the employee in the performance of his functions. * The authority to terminate the employment.

C. Hari Shankar, J.

This writ petition, at the instance of Spiegel Verlag Rudolf Augstein GmbH & Co KG, a company incorporated in Germany, assails an award, dated 3rd November, 2017, passed by the learned Labour Court, Karkardooma, Delhi.

2. The terms of reference, as formulated in the Order of Reference, dated 26th June, 2013, issued by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi read thus:

“Whether the action of management, terminating the services of worklady, Ms Padma Rao, D/o late Dr V.V.S.K. Rao w.e.f. 30/4/2012 by not renewing the contract agreement dated 1/5/1998 is legal and justified; and if no, to what relief is she entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?.”

The Impugned Award

3. The facts of the case, as set out in the Statement of Claim filed by Respondent No.2, Ms. Padma Rao, before the Labour Court, may be set out thus:

(i) The following agreement was entered into, between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2, on 9th April, 1998:

“Dear Ms. Rao,

We are pleased to confirm the following agreement with you:

1. With effect of May 1, 1998, you will be a freelance employee of the SPIEGEL Publishers, Hamburg and will be based in New Delhi;

2. Your duties will be along the lines specified by us in our discussion; (reportage and other writing for SPIEGEL Publishers);

3. You will receive a monthly retainer of the Deutschmark 6000, which will include DM 2000 towards rent of your office/residence. The retainer will be transferred to you 12 times a year at the end of each month. You are required to pay taxes as per prevailing laws of the country you reside in.

4. Should you incur additional travel or entertainment expenses during the course of your work, which have been cleared by either the editors-in-chief of the foreign desk of DER SPIEGEL magazine, these will be reimbursed against receipts.

5. By payment of a retainer, SPIEGEL-Verlag automatically reserves all copyright over any work that you may be required to do under the requirements of paragraph 1.

6. This agreement can be terminated by both sides through a notice of 6 weeks at the end of an annual quarter. If not renewed by January 31, 2000, this agreement will end on April 30, 2000.

7. Any changes, additions to this agreement must be made in writing.

We would request you, to indicate your acceptance on the 2nd copy of this letter and send it back to us.

With best regards,

Elka Mahistedt

SPIEGEL-Verlag (SPIEGEL Publishing House)

Personnel Department”

(ii) Consequent upon, and following on, the above agreement dated 9th April, 1998, Respondent No. 2 rendered services, for the petitioner, till April 2012. During this entire period, from 1998 till April, 2012, the above agreement/contract, between the petitioner and Respondent No. 2, was renewed on year-to-year basis. However, the agreement was not renewed beyond April 2012. As a result, the relationship between the petitioner and Respondent No. 2 came to an end on 30th April, 2012.

(iii) Before the Labour Court, Respondent No. 2 sought to contend that the above agreement, dated 9th April, 1998, though styled as a “freelance employee” contract, was actually a permanent contract of employment, in support of which contention, Respondent No. 2 drew attention to the fact that (i) Respondent No. 2 used to report directly to the petitioner at Hamburg, (ii) the salary of Respondent No. 2 was paid by the Hamburg office of the petitioner, (iii) the duty timings of Respondent No. 2 were determined by the Hamburg office of the petitioner, (iv) Respondent No. 2 also used to vote in the elections held for the “Employee's Advisory Council”, like all other permanent employees of the petitioner, (v) permission was required to be obtained, from the Hamburg office of the petitioner, for Respondent No. 2 to travel and (vi) permission was also needed, from the Hamburg office of the petitioner, for Respondent No. 2 to avail leave. Respondent No. 2 further contended that, though the petitioner-trea