Delhi District Court
Mohan Singh vs M/S Maa Janki Enterprises on 11 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ARUN KUMAR GARG
PRESIDING OFFICER : LABOUR COURT-III
ROUSE AVENUE COURTS COMPLEX : NEW DELHI.
CNR No. DLCT13-002621-2025
Ref. No. F.24(90)/R-30/SWD/Lab./130 dated 02.05.2025
LIR No. 314/2025
Sh. Mohan Singh S/o Sh. Parsadi Lal,
Present Address: H. No. 73-B, Gali No. 5,
Sai Enclave, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi-110059
Mobile No. 8766224311
Through:
Delhi Pradesh Kaamgar Ekta Sangh (Regd. 4431),
E-3, Shop No. 2, Behind Dada Dev Hospital,
Seeta Puri, Part-I, New Delhi-110045
Mobile No. 9810561434, 9971216078
Also Through:
Sh. Madan Mohan, AR of Workman,
Mobile No. 9971216078
Email ID: [email protected] ..... Workman
VERSUS
M/s. Maa Janki Enterprises
Through its Proprietor Sh. Praveen Jha,
Address: Plot No. 81-83, Gali No. 9
(Inside Kanishka Hardware Building),
55 Futa Road, Vipin Garden, Uttam Nagar,
Dwarka Mor, New Delhi-110043
Mobile Nos. 7011591074, 7827755019
Also at: House No. D-54, Gali No. 34,
Vipin Garden Extension, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi-110059. ..... Management
Date of Institution of the case : 06.05.2025
Date on which Award is passed : 11.12.2025
LIR No. 314/2025
Mohan Singh Vs. M/s. Maa Janki Enterprises
Award dated 11.12.2025 Page 1 of 29
AWARD
1. By this award, I will dispose off the present claim, filed by
Workman pursuant to reference Section 10(1)(C) & 12(5) of
Industrial Disputes Act, received from the office of Deputy
Labour Commissioner (South-West), Labour Department, Govt.
of NCT of Delhi vide order reference no.
F.24(90)/R-30/SWD/Lab./130 dated 02.05.2025, whereby, the
following issue has been referred to this Court for adjudication:-
"Whether the services of Workman Sh. Mohan Singh
S/o Sh. Parsadi Lal, Mobile No. 8766224311, Aadhar
Card No. 639743138423, have been terminated
illegally and/or unjustifiably by the Management; and
if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions
are necessary in this respect?"
2. The aforesaid reference was received by this Court on
06.05.2025 and thereafter, statement of claim was filed by
Workman on 28.05.2025. Brief case of Workman as per his
statement of claim is that he had been working with Management,
as a Pressman (Power), since November 2021, against last drawn
monthly wages of Rs. 18,000/-, however, on 11.11.2023,
Management has illegally terminated his services in violation of
provisions of Section 25F, G and H of Industrial Disputes Act,
1947, while, withholding his earned wages for the period July
2023 to 10.11.2023.
3. It is further his case that Management does not provide any
document qua employment of its workers, nor, does it maintain
any such record. Pursuant to his joint complaint dated 04.12.2023
to Dy. Labour Commissioner(South-West), Labour Department,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi, according to him, Sh. Praveen Jha
LIR No. 314/2025
Mohan Singh Vs. M/s. Maa Janki Enterprises
Award dated 11.12.2025 Page 2 of 29
appeared before the Labour Inspector Mrs. Beena and submitted a
joint application, wherein, he has undertaken to make the
payment of half of the earned wages of all the workers, including
the present Workman, on 17.02.2024 by visiting the Union Office
and to make the remaining half payment to all the workers on
13.03.2024 in the presence of Labour Inspector.
4. Though, according to him, Management has thereafter made
payment of half of the earned wages to all the Workers, except
Sh. Bhushan Kumar, to whom, the full amount of earned wages
was paid by Management, however, Management has failed to
make the balance payment in terms of the joint application to the
remaining Workers on 13.03.2024. In fact, according to him,
Management did not even appear before the Labour Inspector,
either on 13.03.2024 or on any such subsequent date, despite
receipt of show cause notice issued by Labour Inspector for
01.04.2024.
5. It has further been alleged in the statement of claim that
prior to aforesaid settlement, he, along with few other Workers,
had already served a joint demand notice dated 20.01.2024 upon
Management, seeking not only their reinstatement with full back
wages, but also, payment of their earned wages. Since, according
to him, Management has failed to abide by the terms and
conditions of aforesaid settlement, Workman, along with his co-
workers, has again served a reminder notice dated 12.06.2024
upon Management. Management, according to him, has however
neither replied to the aforesaid demand notice, nor, complied with
the same. Workman has thus prayed for his reinstatement into the
LIR No. 314/2025
Mohan Singh Vs. M/s. Maa Janki Enterprises
Award dated 11.12.2025 Page 3 of 29
services of Management with full back wages, arrears of earned
wages, bonus and leave encashment etc. with continuity of
service and other consequential benefits, alleging, himself to be
wholly unemployed since the date of illegal termination of his
services by Management.
6. Management appeared in response to notice of statement of
claim and filed its written statement on 25.08.2025. In its written
statement, Management has not denied that Workman was
working with Management as a Pressman, however, Management
has denied that he was working with Management against a fixed
monthly salary of Rs. 18,000/-. In fact, it is the case of
Management, as per its written statement, that Workman was
working with Management on contract basis as an independent
contractor and used to get his payment on the basis of number of
pieces ironed by him, as per the rates mutually decided by
Workman and Management. Management has thus prayed for
dismissal of present claim of Workman, while, denying the
existence of any employer-employee relationship between the
parties and alleging that all the dues of Workman, in relation to
the work performed by him as an independent contractor, had
already been cleared by Management and he is not entitled to any
other statutory benefit including alleged arrears of his earned
wages.
7. So far as the alleged joint application, filed by parties to
present claim with the Labour Inspector, is concerned, it is
submitted by Management that representative of Management
was forced to admit the demand made by Workman in the claim
LIR No. 314/2025
Mohan Singh Vs. M/s. Maa Janki Enterprises
Award dated 11.12.2025 Page 4 of 29
petition before Labour Inspector under the threat of dire
consequences extended by Workman through his union. Even the
part payment, in terms of alleged settlement, according to
Management, was made by Management to Workman under the
illegal pressure exerted by Workman's union during pendency of
proceedings before Labour Inspector. Management has thus
prayed for dismissal of present claim of Workman with heavy
cost.
8. No rejoinder to the written statement of Management was
filed by Workman despite opportunity and hence, on the basis of
pleadings of parties, following issues were settled by this Court
vide order dated 26.08.2025:-
(i). Whether there existed any employer-employee
relationship between the parties to the present claim
petition? (OPW)
(ii). Whether the Claimant was working with the
Management as an independent contractor and not as
an employee? OPM
(iii). Whether services of workman have been illegally
terminated by management on 11.11.2023? (OPW)
(iv). Relief, if any.
9. Workman has thereafter examined herself as WW-1 i.e. as
the sole witness in support of her case and tendered her evidence
by way of affidavit Ex.WW1/A along with following documents:
(i) Ex.WW1/1: Copy of aadhar card of Workman.
(ii) Ex.WW1/2: Copy of joint complaint dated
04.12.2023 filed by Workman before Assistant Labour
Commissioner.
(iii) Ex. WW1/3: Copy of demand notice dated
LIR No. 314/2025
Mohan Singh Vs. M/s. Maa Janki Enterprises
Award dated 11.12.2025 Page 5 of 29
20.01.2024 along with its postal receipt.
(iv) Ex.WW1/4: Copy of joint application dated
08.02.2024 filed by Management and Workmen before
Dy. Labour Commissioner (South West).
(v) Ex. WW1/5: Copy of receipt of part payment
made by Management to Workman.
(vi) Ex.WW1/6: Copy of reminder demand notice
12.06.2024 along with its postal receipt.
(vii) Ex. WW1/7: Copy of joint claim of Workman
before Conciliation Officer.
(viii) Ex.WW1/8 (colly): Copy of proceedings before
Conciliation Officer.
10. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for
Management. No other witness was examined on behalf of
Workman despite opportunity and hence, Workman's evidence
was closed by this Court vide order dated 14.10.2025.
11. Management has thereafter examined its Proprietor Sh.
Praveen Kumar Jha as MW-1 i.e. as the sole witness in support of
its case. He has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit
Ex.MW1/1 along with copy of his aadhar card Ex. MW1/A.
MW-1 was duly cross-examined by Ld. AR for Workman and
was confronted with the documents already Ex.WW1/4 and
Ex.WW1/8. No other witness was examined on behalf of
Management despite opportunity and hence, on the submission of
Proprietor of Management, Management's evidence was closed
vide order dated 10.11.2025.
12. Final arguments were thereafter heard on behalf of
Workman on 26.11.2025 and on behalf of Management on
02.12.2025. Besides, Written arguments have also been filed on
LIR No. 314/2025
Mohan Singh Vs. M/s. Maa Janki Enterprises
Award dated 11.12.2025 Page 6 of 29
behalf of Workman on 26.11.2025.
13. It is submitted by Ld. AR for Workman that Workman has
been able to prove the existence of employer-employee
relationship between the parties to present claim, not only,
through his uncontroverted testimony by way of affidavit Ex.
WW-1/A, but also, through cross-examination of MW-1. He
submits that MW-1, during his cross-examination, has admitted
that Ms. Ruby used to calculate the number of pieces ironed by
Workman on a daily basis for computation of his dues, meaning
thereby, Workman was admittedly working under direct control
and supervision of Management.
14. Not only, according to him, Workman has proved that he
was working under direct control and supervision of
Management, but also, that payment of his wages was being
made by Management. It is further submitted by him that the
Proprietor of Management, during his cross-examination, has
admitted his signatures on the joint application dated 08.02.2024,
submitted before the Labour Inspector, however, has tried to take
a plea that he had affixed his signatures on the aforesaid
document faced by a threat from the representatives of workman
union that they shall put his factory on fire, if the Management
does not sign the aforesaid application. The aforesaid threat,
according to MW-1, he submits, was given by representatives of
Workman Union by paying a visit to his factory and even the said
application, according to MW-1, was signed at the factory of
Management.
15. A perusal of record produced by Workman, according to
LIR No. 314/2025
Mohan Singh Vs. M/s. Maa Janki Enterprises
Award dated 11.12.2025 Page 7 of 29
him, however, shows that the aforesaid application was in fact,
singed by the Proprietor of Management in the Labour Office and
hence, there was no occasion for representatives of Workman
union to extend threat of putting the factory of Management on
fire. Admittedly, no police complaint, according to him, was
made by Management against alleged illegal act of officer bearers
of Workman union in extending threats to put the factory of
Management on fire. The aforesaid conduct of proprietor of
Management, according to him, is highly unreasonable, in as
much as, a reasonable man, faced with similar threat, would have
immediately approached the police, if he was actually threatened.
16. Management, according to him, has failed to prove the
payment of full and final dues of Workman, nor, has it been able
to produce any document to prove that Workman was working
with Management as an independent contractor, for which, an
adverse inference needs to be drawn against Management that
Workman was in regular employment of Management since
November 2021 until 10.11.2023.
17. Under the aforesaid circumstances, according to him,
Workman has been able to prove that he had been in continuous
and regular employment of Management since November 2021
until 10.11.2023 and that on 11.11.2023, his services were
terminated by Management in violation of provisions of Section
25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, not only, illegally, but, also
unjustifiably. Management, according to him, has tried to defeat
the claim of Workman by taking false contradictory pleas. The
Workman, according to him, is thus entitled to his reinstatement
LIR No. 314/2025
Mohan Singh Vs. M/s. Maa Janki Enterprises
Award dated 11.12.2025 Page 8 of 29
with full back wages, continuity of service and other
consequential benefits, however, considering long passage of
time and the Management's continued business operations, the
Court may award monetary compensation in favour of Workman,
in lieu of his reinstatement with back wages. In support of his
aforesaid submissions, Ld. AR for Workman has relied upon
following judgments:
(i) Range Forest Officer vs. S.T. Hadimani AIR
2002 SC 1147; (2002) 3 SCC 25.
(ii) Shining Tailors vs. Industrial Tribunal II, U.P.
(AIR 1984 SC 23; (1983) 4 SCC 464.
(iii) FCI vs. Direct Payment System Workers, CA No.
2539/2016 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
on 18.05.2020.
(iv) Food Corporation of India Workers' Union v.
Food Corporation of India & Ors. (1985)2 SCC 294.
(v) Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. vs. Employees AIR
1979 SC 75.
(vi) DTC vs. Shyam Lal 2010 SCC OnLine Del1848.
(vii) Workman represented by Secretary vs.
Management of Reptakos Brett & Company Ltd. &
Anr. (1992)1 SCC 290.
18. On the other hand, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for
Management that Workman has failed to produce any document
as a proof of his employment with Management, nor, has he
produced any document to prove that he used to receive a fixed
monthly salary @ Rs. 18,000/- from Management during his
alleged employment with Management. He submits that the case
of Workman, even otherwise, is fraught with contradictions. It is
further submitted by him that only three, out of six, workers, who
LIR No. 314/2025
Mohan Singh Vs. M/s. Maa Janki Enterprises
Award dated 11.12.2025 Page 9 of 29
have joined hands in filing the claim before Dy. Labour
Commissioner and in sending a demand notice to Management,
have chosen to file their respective claims before this Court,
whereas, remaining three have not filed any claim(s) against
Management.
19. Testimonies of all three Claimants, according to him, before
this Court, in three connected matters bearing LIR no. 312/2025,
LIR no. 313/2025 and LIR no. 314/2025 listed today for
pronouncement of judgments, are fraught with contradictions, in
as much as, though, the present Claimant, during his cross-
examination, has deposed having joined the services of
Management in the month of November 2021, while, alleging
that his co-worker namely Smt. Visheshwari had already been
working with Management at the time of his joining the
Management, however, the Claimant in connected matter bearing
LIR no. 312/2025 namely Smt. Visheshwari has deposed in her
evidence that at the time of her joining, present claimant had
already been working with Management.
20. He submits that through his uncontroverted testimony by
way of affidavit Ex. MW-1/A, Proprietor of Management has
been able to prove that he was forced to sign the document
Ex.WW1/4 in his factory under a threat from office bearers of
Workman's union to put the factory of Management on fire, in
case, Management fails to accede to their illegal demands. He
further submits that Management was even constrained to make
part payment to Workman, in terms of the aforesaid document,
since, he was genuinely apprehending loss of his factory by fire
LIR No. 314/2025
Mohan Singh Vs. M/s. Maa Janki Enterprises
Award dated 11.12.2025 Page 10 of 29
on account of criminal antecedents of son of Workman, who was
involved in a murder case. In the absence of proof of existence of
any employer-employee relationship between the parties to
present claim, according to him, present claim of Workman is
liable to be dismissed.
21. I have heard the submissions made on behalf of both the
parties and have carefully perused the material available on
record. My issue-wise findings, on the issues settled by this
Court, vide order dated 26.08.2025, are as follows:-
Issue no. (i): Whether there existed any employer-
employee relationship between the parties to the
present claim petition? (OPW)
22. Onus to prove the aforesaid issue was upon Workman. In his
statement of claim, Workman has alleged himself to be in
employment of Management at the post of Pressman(Power)
since November 2021 until 10.11.2023, against last drawn
monthly wages of Rs. 18,000/- and that on 11.11.2023, his
services were illegally terminated by Management. In its written
statement, though, Management did not dispute the fact that
Claimant was working with Management as a Pressman,
however, it has denied the existence of employer-employee
relationship between the parties to present claim, while, alleging
that he was working with Management on contract on piece rate
basis and not against any fixed monthly salary, much less, against
salary of Rs. 18,000/- per month.
23. In order to prove the existence of employer-employee
relationship between parties to present claim, Workman has
LIR No. 314/2025
Mohan Singh Vs. M/s. Maa Janki Enterprises
Award dated 11.12.2025 Page 11 of 29
examined himself as the sole witness and tendered his evidence
by way of affidavit Ex.WW1/A. In his affidavit, he has once
again reaffirmed all the averments, made by him in his statement
of claim, on Oath. He has however failed to produce any
document such as- any appointment letter, identity card, salary
slip, ESI Card, attendance card or agreement, to prove that he was
either a regular employee of Management or was receiving a
fixed monthly salary of Rs. 18,000/- from Management.
24. Be that as it may, in view of authoritative pronouncements
of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Shining Tailors vs.
Industrial Tribunal II, U.P. Lucknow & Ors. (1983) 4 SCC 464
and Shankar Balaji Waje vs. State of Maharashtra 1961 SCC
OnLine SC 366, even if, it is assumed for the sake of arguments
that the Claimant was working with Management on piece rate
basis and not against fixed monthly wages, the aforesaid fact, by
itself, is not sufficient to negate the existence of any employer-
employee relationship between the parties to present claim,
though, the receipt of fixed monthly wages can be one of the
factors indicating existence of employer-employee relationship
between the parties to present claim.
25. In fact, it has been categorically held by Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in the aforesaid judgments as well as in Sushilaben
Indravadan Gandhi vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. &
Ors. (2021)7 SCC 151, that though in the past the test to
determine the existence of employer-employee relationship was
the test of degree of control and supervision to be exercised by
the employer upon the Workman, however, lately the emphasis
LIR No. 314/2025
Mohan Singh Vs. M/s. Maa Janki Enterprises
Award dated 11.12.2025 Page 12 of 29
has shifted from the aforesaid test to a multifaceted approach,
wherein, a series of factors are required to be considered by the
Court for determination of question whether a contract between
the parties is a contract of service or a contract for services.
26. One of the test recently adopted by Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India in determination of the aforesaid question is to see
whether the person employed is integrated into the employer's
business or is merely an accessory thereof. Besides, the aforesaid
test, a three tier test has also been laid down which considers
various factors such as- (i) Whether wages or other remuneration
is paid by the employer, (ii) Whether there is sufficient degree of
control by the employer, (iii) Other factors such as- who is the
owner of the asset with which, the work is to be done and/or who
ultimately makes a profit or loss, so as to make a determination-
whether a business is being run for the employer or on one's on
account. Another factor to be considered by the Court at the time
of determination of the aforesaid question is- whether the
employer has economic control over the worker's subsistence,
skill and continued employment.
27. It has further been laid down in the aforesaid judgment that
no single test of universal application can ever yield the correct
result and it is a conglomerate of all applicable tests, taken on the
totality of the fact situation in a given case, that would ultimately
yield, particularly in a complex hybrid situation, whether the
contract to be construed is a contract of service or a contract for
service and it is for the Court to perform a balancing act,
weighing all relevant factors which point in one direction, as,
LIR No. 314/2025
Mohan Singh Vs. M/s. Maa Janki Enterprises
Award dated 11.12.2025 Page 13 of 29
against those which point in the opposite direction, to arrive at the
correct conclusion on the facts of each case. It has also been held
in the aforesaid judgment that the balancing process of the Court
will give due weight to the context, in which, a finding on the
aforesaid question is to be given, in as much as, if the context is a
beneficial legislation, being applied to weaker sections of the
society, the balance tilts in favour of declaring the contract to be
one of service, whereas, if the context is of some other legislation
or only in the realm of contract, the balance may tilt in favour of
the contract being construed to be one which is for service.
Relevant observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
Sushilaben Indravadan Gandhi vs. New India Assurance
Company Ltd. & Ors. (2021)7 SCC 151, in this regard are being
reproduced herein below for ready reference:
"32. A conspectus of all the aforesaid judgments would
show that in a society which has moved away from
being a simple agrarian society to a complex modern
society in the computer age, the earlier simple test of
control, whether or not actually exercised, has now
yielded more complex tests in order to decide complex
matters which would have factors both for and against
the contract being a contract of service as against a
contract for service. The early "control of the employer"
test in the sense of controlling not just the work that is
given but the manner in which it is to be done obviously
breaks down when it comes to professionals who may be
employed. A variety of cases come in between cases
which are crystal clear -- for example, a master in a
school who is employed like other employees of the
school and who gives music lessons as part of his
employment, as against an independent professional
piano player who gives music lessons to persons who
visit her premises. Equally, a variety of cases arise
between a ship's master, a chauffeur and a staff reporter,
as against a ship's pilot, a taxi driver and a contributor to
a newspaper, in order to determine whether the person
LIR No. 314/2025
Mohan Singh Vs. M/s. Maa Janki Enterprises
Award dated 11.12.2025 Page 14 of 29
employed could be said to be an employee or an
independent professional. The control test, after moving
away from actual control of when and how work is to be
performed to the right to exercise control, is one in a
series of factors which may lead to an answer on the
facts of a case slotting such case either as a contract of
service or a contract for service. The test as to whether
the person employed is integrated into the employer's
business or is a mere accessory thereof is another
important test in order to determine on which side of the
line the contract falls. The three-tier test laid down by
some of the English judgments, namely, whether wage
or other remuneration is paid by the employer; whether
there is a sufficient degree of control by the employer
and other factors would be a test elastic enough to apply
to a large variety of cases. The test of who owns the
assets with which the work is to be done and/or who
ultimately makes a profit or a loss so that one may
determine whether a business is being run for the
employer or on one's own account, is another important
test when it comes to work to be performed by
independent contractors as against piece-rated labourers.
Also, the economic reality test laid down by the US
decisions and the test of whether the employer has
economic control over the workers' subsistence, skill and
continued employment can also be applied when it
comes to whether a particular worker works for himself
or for his employer. The test laid down by the Privy
Council in Lee Ting Sang v. Chung Chi-keung [Lee
Ting Sang v. Chung Chi-keung, (1990) 2 AC 374 (PC)] ,
namely, is the person who has engaged himself to
perform services performing them as a person in
business on his own account, is also an important test,
this time from the point of view of the person employed,
in order to arrive at the correct solution. No one test of
universal application can ever yield the correct result. It
is a conglomerate of all applicable tests taken on the
totality of the fact situation in a given case that would
ultimately yield, particularly in a complex hybrid
situation, whether the contract to be construed is a
contract of service or a contract for service. Depending
on the fact situation of each case, all the aforesaid
factors would not necessarily be relevant, or, if relevant,
be given the same weight. Ultimately, the Court can only
perform a balancing act weighing all relevant factors
LIR No. 314/2025
Mohan Singh Vs. M/s. Maa Janki Enterprises
Award dated 11.12.2025 Page 15 of 29
which point in one direction as against those which point
in the opposite direction to arrive at the correct
conclusion on the facts of each case.
33. Given the fact that this balancing process may
often not yield a clear result in hybrid situations, the
context in which a finding is to be made assumes great
importance. Thus, if the context is one of a beneficial
legislation being applied to weaker sections of society,
the balance tilts in favour of declaring the contract to be
one of service, as was done in Dharangadhra
[Dharangadhra Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of
Saurashtra, 1957 SCR 152 : AIR 1957 SC 264] ,
Birdhichand [Birdhichand Sharma v. Civil Judge, (1961)
3 SCR 161 : AIR 1961 SC 644] , D.C. Dewan [D.C.
Dewan Mohideen Sahib & Sons v. United Beedi
Workers' Union, (1964) 7 SCR 646 : AIR 1966 SC
370] , Silver Jubilee [Silver Jubilee Tailoring House v.
Chief Inspector of Shops & Establishments, (1974) 3
SCC 498 : 1974 SCC (L&S) 31] , Hussainbhai
[Hussainbhai v. Alath Factory Thezhilali Union, (1978)
4 SCC 257 : 1978 SCC (L&S) 506] , Shining Tailors
[Shining Tailors v. Industrial Tribunal, (1983) 4 SCC
464 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 533] , P.M. Patel [P.M. Patel &
Sons v. Union of India, (1986) 1 SCC 32 : 1986 SCC
(L&S) 155] , and Indian Banks [Indian Banks Assn. v.
Workmen of Syndicate Bank, (2001) 3 SCC 36 : 2001
SCC (L&S) 504] . On the other hand, where the context
is that of legislation other than beneficial legislation or
only in the realm of contract, and the context of that
legislation or contract would point in the direction of the
relationship being a contract for service then, other
things being equal, the context may then tilt the balance
in favour of the contract being construed to be one
which is for service."
28. No legal proposition, contrary to the law laid down by
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the aforesaid judgment, has
been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in either of the
judgments relied upon by Ld. AR for Workman. No doubt, in the
case in hand, the Court is dealing with a beneficial piece of
legislation in the form of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and
LIR No. 314/2025
Mohan Singh Vs. M/s. Maa Janki Enterprises
Award dated 11.12.2025 Page 16 of 29
hence, in view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncements, the
balance should ideally tilt in favour of holding the contract
between Workman and Management to be one of service,
however, pleading as well as evidence of both the parties before
this Court is conspicuously silent on various factors to be
considered by this Court during the aforesaid balancing exercise.
29. It is significant to note in this regard that none of the parties
in the present case have disclosed the nature of business/industrial
activity carried on by Management, wherein, Claimant was
allegedly employed. Also, there is no whisper in the Pleadings as
well as evidence by way of affidavits of WW-1 and MW-1 about
the fact- as to whether Workman used to perform his duties
during fixed working hours or on a daily basis or if he used to
report at the establishment of Management as per the requirement
of Management and/or as per his own convenience.
30. It was only during cross-examination of MW-1 dated
10.11.2025 that in response to a question of Ld. AR for
Workman, MW-1 deposed that there were no fixed timings of
work for the Claimant and that the Workman used to come as per
requirement on receipt of call from Management. Though, a
suggestion was thereafter given by Ld. AR for Workman that
deposition of MW-1 on the aforesaid aspect was false and that
Workman used to work for fixed number of hours, however, the
same was categorically denied by MW-1. Workman has however
failed to lead any evidence to prove that he used to work on a
daily basis for fixed number of hours.
31. The only other relevant facts for determination of the
LIR No. 314/2025
Mohan Singh Vs. M/s. Maa Janki Enterprises
Award dated 11.12.2025 Page 17 of 29
aforesaid question that can be found in the evidence of MW-1 are
that the electric pressing equipments and other infrastructure were
provided to Workman by the Management and that it was the
choice of Workman either to work on given rate or to leave ( sic
lease) the Work without assigning any reason. The aforesaid
deposition of MW-1 in para 4 and 7 of his affidavit has remained
uncontroverted during his cross-examination by Ld. AR for
Workman.
32. Admittedly, no appointment letter or identity card in the
name of Workman had ever been issued by Management, nor, the
Management had been providing him with any other statutory
benefit, such as- bonus, leaves etc. It has been alleged by Ld.
Counsel for Management that non-issuance of any appointment
letter/identity card or non-providing of other statutory benefits,
admissible to regular employees of Management, to the Claimant
indicates non-existence of any employer-employee relationship
between the parties to present claim. I find force in the aforesaid
submission made on behalf of Management, more so, when
Workman had admittedly never made any complaint in this
regard.
33. On the other hand, placing reliance on the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Range Forest Officer vs. S.T.
Hadimani (2002)3 SCC 25, it is sought to be contended by Ld.
AR for Workman that the omission on the part of Management to
produce the service record of its employees, including that of
Workman, is sufficient to give rise to an adverse inference against
Management that, if produced, the same would have proved the
LIR No. 314/2025
Mohan Singh Vs. M/s. Maa Janki Enterprises
Award dated 11.12.2025 Page 18 of 29
Workman to be a regular employee of Management. I have
carefully gone through the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India and do not find any such proposition of
law laid down in the aforesaid judgment.
34. In fact, in my considered opinion, aforesaid judgment,
instead of supporting the case of Workman, goes against him, in
as much as, it was categorically observed by Hon'ble Supreme
Court that the Tribunal has wrongly placed the onus to prove, that
Workman had not completed 240 days of continuous service with
Management within the year immediately preceding his alleged
termination, upon the Management, despite the fact that
Workman in the said case had not produced any proof of receipt
of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record of appointment
or engagement for this period, in support of his self serving
statement, in his affidavit, that he had worked for a continuous
period of 240 days. It was further held in the said judgment that
the aforesaid self serving statement of Workman can't be
considered to be a proof of aforesaid fact in view of denial by
Respondent of the same. Relevant observations of Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the aforesaid judgment are being reproduced herein below for ready reference:
"2. In the instant case, dispute was referred to the Labour Court that the respondent had worked for 240 days and his service had been terminated without paying him any retrenchment compensation. The appellant herein did not accept this and contended that the respondent had not worked for 240 days. The Tribunal vide its award dated 10-8-1998 came to the conclusion that the service had been terminated without giving retrenchment compensation. In arriving at the conclusion that the respondent had worked for 240 days, the LIR No. 314/2025 Mohan Singh Vs. M/s. Maa Janki Enterprises Award dated 11.12.2025 Page 19 of 29 Tribunal stated that the burden was on the management to show that there was justification in termination of the service and that the affidavit of the workman was sufficient to prove that he had worked for 240 days in a year.
3. For the view we are taking, it is not necessary to go into the question as to whether the appellant is an "industry" or not, though reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in State of Gujarat v. Pratamsingh Narsinh Parmar [(2001) 9 SCC 713 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 269 : JT (2001) 3 SC 326] . In our opinion the Tribunal was not right in placing the onus on the management without first determining on the basis of cogent evidence that the respondent had worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding his termination. It was the case of the claimant that he had so worked but this claim was denied by the appellant. It was then for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in the year preceding his termination. Filing of an affidavit is only his own statement in his favour and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any court or tribunal to come to the conclusion that a workman had, in fact, worked for 240 days in a year. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record of appointment or engagement for this period was produced by the workman. On this ground alone, the award is liable to be set aside. However, Mr Hegde appearing for the Department states that the State is really interested in getting the law settled and the respondent will be given an employment on compassionate grounds on the same terms as he was allegedly engaged prior to his termination, within two months from today."
35. No doubt, in appropriate cases, non-production of service record of its employees by the Management may give rise to an adverse inference against the Management, however, it is significant to note in this regard that Workman, in the present case, has failed to seek any direction to Management, by moving an appropriate application under Section 11(3)(b) of Industrial LIR No. 314/2025 Mohan Singh Vs. M/s. Maa Janki Enterprises Award dated 11.12.2025 Page 20 of 29 Disputes Act, 1947 or even during cross-examination of MW-1, for production of service record of regular employees of Management. In the absence of any such direction, in my considered opinion, no adverse inference can be drawn against Management for non-production of aforesaid record, particularly, when the onus to prove existence of employer-employee relationship between the parties to present case was upon Workman and he had failed to produce even a single document so as to prima facie suggest existence of any such relationship between the Management and himself.
36. In fact, in his statement of claim as well as evidence by way of affidavit, Workman has alleged that the Management has neither provided the service record to any of its employees, nor, has the Management been maintaining any such record. If that be the case, there is no occasion for this Court to raise any adverse inference against the Management for non-production of the record, which, even as per own case of Workman, was not in existence. However, Workman himself has contradicted his aforesaid plea, while, giving a suggestion, during cross- examination of MW-1, that Management used to maintain the record of attendance and payment of wages in respect of its employees.
37. In response to the aforesaid suggestion of Ld. AR of Workman, MW-1 has categorically admitted that the Management is maintaining the record of attendance as well as payment of wages in respect of all its salaried employees, though, no such record is being maintained by Management in respect of LIR No. 314/2025 Mohan Singh Vs. M/s. Maa Janki Enterprises Award dated 11.12.2025 Page 21 of 29 the persons, who used to work for Management on piece rate basis, as and when they were called by Management. Despite admission on the part of MW-1, qua maintenance of record of attendance and payment of wages in respect of all salaried employees of Management and despite the claim of Workman that he had been employed with Management as a regular salaried employee, Workman has surprisingly failed to seek any direction to MW-1 to produce the record of attendance and payment of salary to all its regular employees.
38. Under the aforesaid circumstances, in my considered opinion, omission on the part of Workman to seek a direction to Management to produce the record of attendance and payment of salary to its regular employees gives rise to an adverse inference against the Workman that, if produced, the aforesaid record would not have reflected the name of Workman as a regular employee of Management. In fact, during his cross-examination dated 10.11.2025, MW-1 has categorically deposed that the Claimant had no fixed timing of work and that he used to come as per the requirement on receipt of call from the Management. Workman has however failed to lead any evidence to prove that he used to work during fixed working hours on a regular basis.
39. Merely because, it was admitted by MW-1 that one Ms. Ruby used to calculate the number of pieces packed by Workman on a daily basis and thereafter the Management used to make the payment to Workman on piece rate basis, either towards the end of the day or towards the end of the week, it can't be inferred that Management used to exercise direct control and supervision upon LIR No. 314/2025 Mohan Singh Vs. M/s. Maa Janki Enterprises Award dated 11.12.2025 Page 22 of 29 the Workman, not only, qua the nature of work to be performed by him, but also, qua the manner in which the said work was to be performed, more so, when the entire statement of claim as well as evidence by way of affidavit of Workman is conspicuously silent about the fact as to whether Management had a right to reject the items pressed by Workman.
40. No doubt, Management has failed to lead any cogent evidence, otherwise than by way of self serving statement of MW-1, to the effect that Workman was working with Management as an independent contractor on piece rate basis, however, the aforesaid fact, by itself, is not sufficient to discharge the onus of Workman to prove existence of employer-employee relationship between the parties to present claim, in as much as, burden to prove illegal termination of his services by Management, which requires proof of existence of employer- employee relationship between the parties, was upon Workman and in case neither party leads any evidence in support of their respective pleas, it is the case of Workman, which shall fail.
41. As has already been observed herein above, Workman has examined himself as the sole witness in support of his case and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit, which, contains his self serving statement to the effect that he was in employment of Management since November 2021 until 10.11.2023 against last drawn monthly salary of Rs. 18,000/-. It has also been observed herein above that he has failed to produce any other corroborating oral or documentary evidence in support of his aforesaid self serving statement. In view of authoritative pronouncement of LIR No. 314/2025 Mohan Singh Vs. M/s. Maa Janki Enterprises Award dated 11.12.2025 Page 23 of 29 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Range Forest Officer vs. S.T. Hadimani (2002)3 SCC 25, in my considered opinion, the aforesaid self serving statement of Workman, does not amount to proof of existence of employer-employee relationship between parties to present claim, in view of categorical denial of Management, more so, when the Workman has failed to produce even the proof of receipt by him of his salary from the Management, which, according to him, he always used to receive through paytm in the name of his younger son.
42. His testimony even otherwise is not trustworthy, in as much as, though, in Para 2 of his statement of claim as well as evidence by way of affidavit, he has alleged that Management had withheld his earned wages for a period of more than 4 months i.e. for the period July 2023 to 10.11.2023, however, his outstanding dues in the document Ex. WW-1/4 have been mentioned as Rs. 61,098/- only.
43. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in my considered opinion, Workman has failed to bring on record sufficient facts so as to enable this Court to do the balancing exercise to determine whether the contract between the Workman and Management was one 'of service' or 'for service', as contemplated by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sushilaben Indravadan Gandhi vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors. (2021)7 SCC 151 . In view of peculiar facts and circumstances of present case, wherein, Workman has failed to produce any evidence in the form of any appointment letter, salary slip, identity card, ESIC Card or any evidence qua receipt of any fixed monthly salary from LIR No. 314/2025 Mohan Singh Vs. M/s. Maa Janki Enterprises Award dated 11.12.2025 Page 24 of 29 Management or qua there being any fixed working hours for Workman or qua existence of any right in Management to reject the work done by Workman, in my considered opinion, mere providing of requisite infrastructure by Management for discharge of his duty by Claimant is not sufficient to prove the existence of any employer-employee relationship between parties to present claim.
44. He has also failed to prove any of the circumstances which may lead this Court to draw a presumption in his favour, qua existence of employer-employee relationship between the parties to present claim, even upon application of various tests laid down by Hon'ble Superior Courts to determine the question as to existence of such relationship. Rather, this Court has found his testimony to be unworthy of credit. No doubt, mere payment of remuneration of Workman on piece rate basis could not have negated the existence of employer-employee relationship between the parties to present claim, however, it is not even the case of Workman that he had been receiving his remuneration on piece rate basis and hence, there is no requirement for this Court to deal with the submission of Ld. AR of Workman based on Section 17 of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Food Corporation of India Workers' Union v. Food Corporation of India and Ors. (1985)2 SCC 294 and Workmen represented by Secretary v. Reptakos Brett. & Co. Ltd. And Anr. (1992)1 SCC 290.
45. In view of aforesaid discussion, issue no. (i) is hereby decided against Workman.
LIR No. 314/2025Mohan Singh Vs. M/s. Maa Janki Enterprises Award dated 11.12.2025 Page 25 of 29 Issue no. (ii): Whether the Claimant was working with the Management as an independent contractor and not as an employee? OPM
46. Onus to prove the aforesaid issue was upon Management. However, Management has failed to lead any evidence to prove the same, otherwise than by way of self serving statement of MW-1 to the aforesaid effect, which cannot be acted upon by the Court without any independent corroboration, in view of various discrepancies in the testimony of MW-1 before this Court. Though, in its written statement, Management has not disputed the fact that the Claimant was working with Management since November 2021, however, during his cross-examination, MW-1 has tried to take a plea that the Workman had started working with Management somewhere in the year 2022. He has however, failed to disclose the exact date or month, since, when Workman had started working with Management. It is further significant to note in this regard that despite admitting his signatures on a joint application dated 08.02.2024 Ex. WW-1/4, recording settlement between the parties, he has tried to wriggle out of the settlement by alleging that he was forced to sign the aforesaid settlement and to make the part payment in terms thereof, by the representatives of the Workman's union, who have extended threats to put his factory on fire.
47. He has, however, admittedly not lodged any police complaint against office bearers of the aforesaid union in this regard, indicating that the aforesaid plea of Management, qua signing of document Ex. WW-1/4 and qua making of part payment to Workman in terms of the aforesaid document under LIR No. 314/2025 Mohan Singh Vs. M/s. Maa Janki Enterprises Award dated 11.12.2025 Page 26 of 29 coercion from the office bearers of Workman Union, is clearly an after-thought. It is also beyond the comprehension of this Court as to what made the Management so brave, within a short period of less than a month, to defy the terms of settlement recorded in document Ex. WW-1/4, unaffected by the alleged threats, if a few days earlier, the alleged threats from union representatives of Workman had made him so frightened that he had chosen not only to sign the document Ex. WW1/4, but also, to make the part payment in terms of the document Ex. WW-1/4 over approaching the police with an appropriate complaint.
48. Instead of offering any explanation for his aforesaid conduct, MW-1 has tried to take a plea that he had made the payment reflected in document Ex. WW-1/5 on 17.02.2024 in full and final settlement of all dues of Workman, which, once again, is a plea taken by him out of desperation and is clearly an after thought.
49. In view of aforesaid discussion, issue no. (ii) is thus decided against Management.
Issue no. (iii): Whether the services of Workman have been illegally terminated by Management on 11.11.2023? OPW
50. Onus to prove the aforesaid issue was upon Workman. It has already been observed herein above, during discussion on issue no. (i), that Workman has failed to prove existence of any employer-employee relationship between the parties to present claim. Under the aforesaid circumstances, there was no occasion for Management to terminate his services w.e.f. 11.11.2023, LIR No. 314/2025 Mohan Singh Vs. M/s. Maa Janki Enterprises Award dated 11.12.2025 Page 27 of 29 much less, illegally. Even otherwise, Workman has failed to lead any evidence qua illegal termination of his services by Management on 11.11.2023, otherwise than by way of his bald statement to the aforesaid effect.
51. It has already been observed herein above that the Court shall not be able to act upon the self serving statements of Workman, in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. WW1/A, without any independent corroboration, not only, in view of authoritative pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Range Forest Officer vs. S.T. Hadimani (2002)3 SCC 25, but also, in view of contradiction in his testimony noted herein above and in view of his omission to produce the best evidence of his employment before this Court despite availability thereof. Workman has even failed to impute any reason/motive to Management for alleged termination of his services by Management w.e.f. 11.11.2023.
52. Issue no. (iii) is thus decided hereby decided against the Workman.
Issue no. (iv): Relief, if any.
53. In view of my findings on issues no. (i) and (iii) herein above, in my considered opinion, Workman is not entitled to any relief.
54. Present claim of Workman, filed pursuant to reference dated 02.05.2025, is accordingly dismissed and the reference dated 02.05.2025 is answered in negative in the following terms:
"Workman Sh. Mohan Singh S/o Sh. Prasadi Lal has LIR No. 314/2025 Mohan Singh Vs. M/s. Maa Janki Enterprises Award dated 11.12.2025 Page 28 of 29 failed to prove existence of any employer-employee relationship between the parties to present claim and that his services were terminated by Management either illegally or unjustifiably on 11.11.2023 and hence, he is not entitled to any relief."
55. Ordered accordingly.
56. Requisite number of copies of this award be sent to the competent authority for publication as per rules.
Announced in the open Court on this 11th day of December, 2025. Digitally signed This award consists of 29 number of signed pages. ARUN by ARUN KUMAR GARG KUMAR Date:
2025.12.11 GARG 15:25:57 +0530 (ARUN KUMAR GARG) Presiding Officer Labour Court-III Rouse Avenue Court, New Delhi LIR No. 314/2025 Mohan Singh Vs. M/s. Maa Janki Enterprises Award dated 11.12.2025 Page 29 of 29