IMPORTANT POINT
The High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 is supervisory, not appellate, and it cannot reassess evidence unless substantial injustice is shown.

JUDGMENT :

(Girish Kathpalia, J.)

1. This writ action, brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assails the Labour Court Award dated 13.04.2010, whereby the Reference was answered against the petitioner, holding that he had failed to prove the relationship of employee and employer between him and the respondent. The petitioner has impleaded New Delhi and Pune offices of M/s. Holistic Child Development India as two separate respondents, though basically they are only one entity. Therefore, the respondents in the present judgment are collectively referred to as “the respondent”. Upon issuance of notice, the respondent entered appearance through counsel. I heard learned counsel for both sides and examined the digitized record of the Labour Court.

2. Succinctly stated, circumstances leading to the present case are as follows.

2.1 The petitioner filed directly before the Labour Court his Statement of Claim dated 27.01.2006 against the respondent, challenging the termination of his services and seeking reinstatement with consequential benefits. In his Statement of Claim, the petitioner pleaded that since 29.03.1995 he had been continuously working with the respondent on permanent job at a monthly salary of Rs. 3,120/-, but was shown by the respondent as daily wager and was not being provided statutory benefits, as provided to the other permanent employees; that since he raised a dispute seeking regularization of his services, which dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal vide Reference dated 17.01.2006, the respondent got annoyed and on 13.10.2005 verbally refused to take him back on employment and did not even pay his earned wages; that he issued Demand Notice dated 04.11.2005, which was ignored by the respondent; and that termination of his services by the respondent was illegal, so he is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages.

2.2 On service of notice, the respondent appeared before the Labour Court and filed their written statement denying the pleadings of the petitioner. In their written statement, the respondent pleaded that they are public charitable trust, duly registered by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies and their aims and objects are to show compassion to the poor, orphaned, abandoned and destitute children, so they are not an “industry” within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act; that no formal appointment letter was issued to the petitioner as the respondent never intended to take him in employment; that the New Delhi office of the respondent is in small premises where the petitioner used to work for short duration by cleaning floors and dusting the office premises within two hours and no other work was taken from him, so he was free to work elsewhere to earn money; that the petitioner was not employed against any permanent post or vacancy and his wages were paid day to day on consolidated basis for the number of days he worked in a month; that as regards the regularization dispute, the same culminated into award dated 18.02.2006 of the Industrial Tribunal against the petitioner as he did not file any Statement of Claim; that the entire staff of the respondent at Delhi office comprises of only one office manager and no other employee, so there was no occasion of granting any statutory benefits to anyone; that since the petitioner was extending threats to the office manager and using filthy language, the respondent told him that he was not required for the work of sweeping and dusting the office from 13.10.2005; that on account of conduct of the petitioner, his complaint was disposed of by the Labour Inspector; that the petitioner never completed 240 days of continuous service under the respondent in any calendar year; and that there is no substance in the case set up by the petitioner.

2.3 The petitioner filed a rejoinder, denying the pleadings of the respondent and reaffirmed his claim contents.

2.4 On the basis of rival pleadings, the learned Labour Court fram