Employer-employee relationship requires cumulative proof of control, payment, and supervision; workers failed to establish employment with the society.

An employer-employee relationship is not proved by a single factor; it must be assessed cumulatively through indicators such as control, supervision, appointment, wage payment, disciplinary power, working hours, and integration into the establishment. Applying that approach, the SC accepted findings that the society did not maintain attendance or wage registers, did not fix working hours, did not appoint or discipline the workers, and did not exercise total control over their work. The work was engaged by growers and merchants on a job-to-job basis, with payment ordinarily made by them. The workers failed to discharge the burden of proving employment with the society, and the claim that the arrangement was a camouflage was rejected on the facts.

---

---

Issues: Whether the concerned workers established that they were employees of the cooperative society and that their non-employment was unjustified.

Analysis: The dispute turned on whether the relationship was one of employment or an independent arrangement engaged by growers and merchants on a job-to-job basis. The Court reiterated that no single test is ative in every case and that the existence of master and servant relationship must be determined by a cumulative assessment of relevant factors, including control, supervision, appointment, payment, disciplinary power, working hours, and integration into the establishment. Applying that approach, the Court accepted the concurrent findings that the society did not maintain attendance or wage registers, did not fix working hours, did not appoint or discipline the workers, and did not exercise total control over their work. The work was found to be engaged by growers and merchants, with payment ordinarily made by them and only occasionally routed through the society on behalf of a member. The Court also held that the workers had not discharged the burden of proving that they were employees of the society. The argument that the arrangement was a camouflage was rejected on the facts.

Conclusion: The workers failed to prove an employer-employee relationship with the society, and the finding rejecting the industrial reference was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: In determining whether workers are employees of an establishment, the court must apply a cumulative assessment of the relevant indicators of employment, and the burden lies on the claimant workmen to prove the relationship; absent proof of real control, appointment, payment, and disciplinary supervision by the alleged employer, the claim fails.

---