Employer-employee relationship and writ interference: Labour Court findings stood because the workman failed to prove regular employment.

The Labour Court's finding that no employer-employee relationship existed was upheld because the workman failed to discharge the burden of proving a master-servant relationship. Emails, Form 16A records, the tourism licence, and the work experience certificate were treated as consistent with assignment-based freelance engagement, while tax deduction under the contractor/sub-contractor head supported that conclusion. The High Court reiterated that under Articles 226 and 227 it cannot function as an appellate forum or reappreciate evidence, and will interfere only where findings are perverse, unsupported by evidence, or vitiated by jurisdictional or legal error. No ground for writ interference was made out.

---

---

Issues: Whether the finding of the Labour Court that no employer-employee relationship existed between the parties, and consequently no illegal or unjustifiable termination was made out, called for interference in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The petitioner's claim depended on proving that the work arrangement amounted to employment under the industrial law framework. The Court held that the burden to establish the employer-employee relationship lay on the workman. The materials relied upon, including emails, Form 16A documents, the tourism licence, and the work experience certificate, did not establish a master-servant relationship. The documents indicated assignment-based, freelance engagement rather than regular employment, and the deduction of tax at source under the contractor/sub-contractor head also supported the Labour Court's view. The Court reiterated that under Articles 226 and 227, it cannot act as an appellate forum or reappreciate evidence, and interference is warranted only where the finding is perverse, unsupported by evidence, or suffers from jurisdictional or legal error.

Conclusion: The finding of the Labour Court was upheld, and no ground for interference in writ jurisdiction was made out. The issue was decided against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi: In writ jurisdiction, findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court will not be interfered with unless they are perverse or unsupported by evidence, and the workman must first prove the employer-employee relationship to sustain a claim of illegal termination.

---