Proof of employer-employee relationship is essential before reinstatement and backwages can be sustained.

An employer-employee relationship must be proved by primary material such as appointment records, wage slips, attendance records or other independent evidence. Here, the respondent failed to produce such proof, while the company produced bills, vouchers and tax deduction documents indicating consultancy payments, which the respondent admitted signing. The High Court found the Labour Court's inference of workman status unsupported and its adverse inference against the company erroneous and perverse. Because the foundational fact of employment was not established, the award of reinstatement, continuity of service and backwages could not be sustained and was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent established that he was a workman in the petitioner company and whether the Labour Court's award of reinstatement with continuity of service and backwages could be sustained.

Analysis: The respondent failed to produce primary material such as appointment records, wage slips, attendance records or other independent proof to establish an employer-employee relationship. The petitioner produced bills, vouchers and tax deduction documents showing payment for consultancy services, and the respondent admitted his signatures on those documents. On the evidence on record, the finding that the respondent was a workman was held to be unsupported, and the Labour Court's approach in drawing an adverse inference against the petitioner was found to be erroneous and perverse. Since the foundational fact of employment itself was not proved, the award granting reinstatement and backwages could not stand.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the respondent and in favour of the petitioner; the award was set aside.

---