Delhi High Court
Jai Prakash & Ors vs D.D.A on 27 July, 2026
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 13th May, 2026
Date of Decision: 27thJuly, 2026
Uploaded on: 28th July, 2026
+ W.P.(C) 1594/2007
JAI PRAKASH & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. SarveshBisaria, Ms. Ashish
Azad, Advs.
versus
D.D.A. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Arun Birbal, Adv.
+ W.P.(C) 3938/2011
DDA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arun Birbal, Adv.
versus
BHAN PRAKASH SHARMA AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. SarveshBisaria, Ms. Ashish
Azad, Advs.
+ W.P.(C) 6900/2012
SUSHIL KUMAR AND ANR .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sharma, Mr.
Pramod Kumar, Ms. Divya Ahuja,
Advs.
versus
D.D.A. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Arun Birbal, Adv.
+ W.P.(C) 2858/2015
RAMBIR SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sharma, Mr.
Pramod Kumar, Ms. Divya Ahuja,
Advs.
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Arun Birbal, Adv.
+ W.P.(C) 612/2015
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:28.07.2026 W.P.(C) 1594/2007& other connected matters Page 1 of 35
11:57:53
JAGPAL SHARMA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sharma, Mr.
Pramod Kumar, Ms. Divya Ahuja,
Advs.
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Arun Birbal, Adv.
+ W.P.(C) 8086/2016
BHANWAR PAL SINGH AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sharma, Mr.
Pramod Kumar, Ms. Divya Ahuja,
Advs.
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Arun Birbal, Adv.
+ W.P.(C) 5304/2023
ISHWAR SINGH & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. SarveshBisaria, Ms. Ashish
Azad, Advs.
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS
SECRETARY .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Arun Birbal, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN
JUDGMENT
SHAIL JAIN, J.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
1. The present batch of writ petitions has been preferred under Articles
226 and 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the awards passed by
different Labour Courts/Industrial Adjudicators in industrial disputes
concerning various workmen and the Delhi Development AuthoritySignature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:28.07.2026 W.P.(C) 1594/2007& other connected matters Page 2 of 35
11:57:53
(hereinafter referred to as “DDA”). While in certain matters, the Labour
Courts rejected the claims of the workmen, in one of the connected matters,
reliefs including reinstatement with consequential benefits came to be
granted, leading either the workmen or the DDA to invoke the writ
jurisdiction of this Court.
2. Since all the aforesaid matters arise from an interconnected factual
matrix and involve substantially similar questions of fact and law, they were
heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The facts
are narrated hereinbelow with reference to each connected matter.
3. The DDA is a statutory body incorporated under the Delhi
Development Act, 1957. The disputes in all the connected matters emanate
from claims raised by different workmen who assert that they were engaged
by the DDA in various capacities, including as Mates, Beldars, Chowkidars
and Security Guards in its Engineering Divisions. According to the workmen,
they joined the services of the DDA in or around the year 1982 and were
subsequently regularised on different dates in the year 1985. They assert that
they continuously discharged their duties under the control and supervision of
the DDA and that their services were discontinued in and around the year
1990.
4. The workmen have alleged that the discontinuance of their services
was effected orally and without adherence to the procedure prescribed by law.
According to them, no charge-sheet was issued, no domestic enquiry was
conducted and no notice pay or retrenchment compensation was paid to them
prior to the discontinuance of their services. The workmen accordingly served
demand notices upon the management and sought reinstatement in service
with continuity of service, back wages and all consequential benefits.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:28.07.2026 W.P.(C) 1594/2007& other connected matters Page 3 of 35
11:57:53
5. The DDA contested the claims and disputed the very basis of the
alleged engagement of the workmen. The consistent stand of the management
in the connected matters has been that the concerned workmen were never
lawfully appointed by it and had allegedly entered service on the basis of
forged and fabricated transfer orders, relieving orders and other documents. It
is the case of the DDA that upon the forgeries coming to light, complaints
were made to the relevant police stations and FIR No. 42/1990 came to be
registered at Police Station Trilok Puri, inter alia, recording that the
establishment orders issued from the office of the Chief Engineer (East
Zone), DDA were found to pertain to other genuine employees of the DDA,
and that the personal files and service books of the concerned workmen
appeared to be forged. Criminal proceedings were thereafter initiated, the
investigating agency seized the service records of the workmen under a
seizure memo dated 18.09.1992, and a CBI FIR bearing No. RC-IIIS/92-
Delhi was eventually recorded on 20.09.1992, during the investigation of
which it was revealed that a large number of persons had been able to work
with the DDA on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. According to
the management, the appointments, if any, were void ab initio and,
consequently, no valid relationship of employer and employee ever came into
existence between the parties. It was, therefore, contended that no question of
illegal termination or entitlement to reinstatement and consequential benefits
arose.
6. Upon failure of conciliation proceedings, references came to be made
by the Appropriate Government under Section 10(1)(c) read with Section
12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication of the disputes.
The references broadly pertained to the question whether the workmen had
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:28.07.2026 W.P.(C) 1594/2007& other connected matters Page 4 of 35
11:57:53
abandoned their services or whether their services had been terminated
illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management, and if so, to what relief they
were entitled.
7. Oral and documentary evidence was led by both sides before the
respective Labour Courts. Upon consideration of the pleadings, evidence and
material placed on record, separate awards came to be passed. The awards
were, however, not uniform, while one Labour Court held in favour of the
workmen and granted reinstatement with consequential benefits, others held
that the workmen had failed to establish the existence of a valid employer-
employee relationship and accordingly rejected their claims.
8. The principal connected matters forming part of the present batch,
along with the material particulars of each, are set out in the table
hereinbelow:
S. W.P (C) Parties Labour Court Award Result of No. No. Reference Date Award 1. 1594/2007 Jai Prakash &Ors. v. DDA I.D. No. 15.07.2006 Claim of (Workmen' 1001/1997, workmen s Petition) [Workmen: Labour Court- dismissed. Jai Prakash (Mate), Brahm Pal X, (Beldar), Kushal Pal (Security Guard), Karkardooma ChanderBhan (Security Guard), Om Prakash (Beldar), Ishwar Singh (Mate); All joined: 01.01.1982; all regularised: 1985; services ceased: Jan.-Feb. 1990 2. 3938/2011 DDA v. Bhan Prakash Sharma &Ors. LIR No. 07.12.2010 Claim of (DDA's 574/2006 workmen Petition) [Workmen: (Old I.D N0. allowed: Bhan Prakash Sharma (Security 01/02), reinstatement Guard), Shishu Pal Singh (Mate), Labour Court- with full back Pappu Sharma (Beldar), XIX, wages ordered; Raja Ram Sharma (Beldar), Rajinder Karkardooma liberty to DDA Singh (deceased) (Beldar), Tek Chand to hold domestic Sharma (deceased) (Beldar) , Satish enquiry after Signature Not Verified Signed By:KAPIL KUMAR Signing Date:28.07.2026 W.P.(C) 1594/2007& other connected matters Page 5 of 35 11:57:53 Kumar (deceased) (Khalasi) reinstatement. All Joined: 01.02.1982; services DDA has ceased: 1989-90 challenged. 3. 6900/2012, Sushil Kumar &Anr. v. DDA I.D. No. 11.07.2012 Claim of (Workmen' [Workmen: 151/2011, workmen s Petition) Sushil Kumar (Mate), Labour Court dismissed. Vinod Kumar (Mate) Both joined : 01.02.1982; services discontinued: 1990-1991; FIR No. 42/1990 invoked by DDA against them] 4. 2858/2015, Sh. Rambir Singh v. DDA I.D No. 468/06 23.05.2007 Claim of (Workmen' [Workmen: Rambir Singh (Beldar), (Old No. 8/97), workmen s Petition) Joined: 01.02.1982 Labour Court- dismissed. Terminated : 25.01.1990 XX, (Fast Track), Karkardooma Courts 5. 612/2015 Sh. Jagpal Sharma v. DDA I.D No. 509/06 23.05.2007 Claim of (Workmen' [Workmen: Jagpal Sharma (Beldar), (Old No. workmen s Petition) Joined: 1982 388/98), dismissed. Terminated : 1990 Labour Court- XX, (Fast Track), Karkardooma Courts 6. 8086/2016 Bhanwar Pal Singh &Ors. v. DDA I.D. No. 25.01.2016 Claim of (Workmen' 2764/16 (Old Workmen s Petition) [Workmen: Bhanwar Pal Singh I.D. No dismissed. (Beldar), Paras Ram (Beldar), Giri Raj 1178/04), (Chowkidar), Philip Daniel (Beldar, Labour Court- deceased), Suresh Singh (Beldar), XI, Satish Kumar Sharma (Chowkidar), Karkardooma Ajay Kumar Sharma (Beldar, deceased), Nawab Singh (Security Guard); All joined: 01.02.1982 (Nawab Singh: 01.01.1988); services terminated: 07.10.1990 Signature Not Verified Signed By:KAPIL KUMAR Signing Date:28.07.2026 W.P.(C) 1594/2007& other connected matters Page 6 of 35 11:57:53 7. 5304/2023 Ishwar Singh &Anr. v. DDA I.D. No. 15.07.2006 Claim of (Workmen' [Petitioners: Ishwar Singh (Mate) and 1001/1997, Workmen s petition) Brahm Pal (Beldar); same reference as Labour Court- Dismissed. W.P.(C) No. 1594/2007); filed X, (Same award as pursuant to direction in that petition Karkardooma in W.P.(C) No. dated 11.10.2022] 1594/2007) SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES:
9. Having narrated the facts, this Court proceeds to notice the rival
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties across the
connected matters. Since the workmen in all the connected matters have, by
and large, advanced common submissions resisting the DDA’s plea of
forged appointment, and since the DDA has equally advanced a common set
of submissions in support of its plea across these matters, the submissions
are noticed broadly under two heads, with variations specific to individual
matters indicated where relevant.
Submissions on behalf of the DDA:
10. Learned counsel for the DDA submitted that the basis of any
employment is a contract entered into by the free and voluntary consent of
both parties, and that consent obtained on the basis of fraud is no consent in
the eyes of law. It was submitted that the workmen in the connected matters
had never been validly appointed by the DDA and had merely been able to
work in its establishments for a period of time on the strength of forged and
fabricated transfer orders, relieving orders and other documents that, upon
verification, were found to belong to or pertain to other genuine employees
of the DDA. It was submitted that since no valid contract of employment
ever came into existence, the workmen could not claim the status of
employees, and consequently no question of illegal termination,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:28.07.2026 W.P.(C) 1594/2007& other connected matters Page 7 of 35
11:57:53
retrenchment or entitlement to reinstatement could arise.
11. It was submitted that a disciplinary enquiry is required to be held only
where a person is, in fact, in the employment of the management; no such
requirement arises in the case of a person who has merely pretended to be an
employee. Reliance in this regard was placed on the orders of this Court in
DDA v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I and Another[WP(C) No.
1133/1996, order dated 19.03.2010], Virender Singh v. Presiding Officer
and Another [WP(C) No. 9390/2005, judgment dated 17.10.2006], and
Vinod Kumar v. DDA [WP(C) No. 2066/2011, judgment dated 08.12.2015].
It was submitted that even assuming an enquiry was warranted, the Labour
Courts, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, had in several of the
connected matters rightly concluded that the workmen were not employees
of the DDA, and this Court ought not to disturb such concurrent findings of
fact, relying on DDA v. Pratap Singh [WP(C) No. 7390/2011, judgment
dated 21.08.2012] and DDA v. Presiding Officer and Another [WP(C) No.
2468/1998, judgment dated 19.04.2010].
12. It was further submitted that it was for the workmen, and not the
DDA, to establish in the first instance that they were validly employed, the
DDA could not be called upon to prove a negative. Reliance was placed on
DDA v. Harpal Singh and Others [WP(C) No. 3171/2003, order dated
29.03.2006]. It was submitted that none of the workmen had been able to
produce a single document evidencing their employment prior to the date of
the impugned transfer orders, and that in the ordinary course, genuine
employees of long standing would necessarily possess some independent
record of their initial appointment, joining, or postings predating the
documents found to be forged.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:28.07.2026 W.P.(C) 1594/2007& other connected matters Page 8 of 35
11:57:53
13. It was submitted that the forgeries in question were not isolated
instances but part of a wider modus operandi employed by several persons
across multiple establishments of the DDA, which had come to light upon
investigation. It was submitted that the matter had been reported to the
police, that FIR No. 42/1990 was registered at Police Station Trilok Puri,
and that the Central Bureau of Investigation had also registered FIR No. RC-
IIIS/92-Delhi dated 20.09.1992 upon receiving source information, during
the investigation of which it was revealed that a large number of persons had
similarly gained entry into the DDA’s establishments on forged documents,
with the names of several of the present workmen appearing in a list of
bogus employees prepared by the CBI. It was submitted that upon the
forgeries being detected, the workmen apprehended action against
themselves and absconded, and it was for this reason, and not on account of
any illegal termination by the DDA, that they ceased to report for duty.
14. As regards the award dated 07.12.2010 in the Bhan Prakash Sharma
matter, it was submitted that the said award, and the relief of reinstatement
and back wages granted thereunder, had already been stayed by this Court
vide order dated 01.06.2011 in W.P.(C) No. 3938/2011, that the workmen’s
prayer for interim relief under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 had been declined vide order dated 05.10.2011, and that the said order
had been upheld in LPA No. 118/2012. It was submitted that the said award
could not, therefore, be treated as a binding precedent in favour of the
workmen in the other connected matters, the correctness of the findings
recorded therein being itself under challenge before this Court. As regards
the records relied upon by the workmen, it was submitted that whatever
service records and connected documents were available with DDA, were
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:28.07.2026 W.P.(C) 1594/2007& other connected matters Page 9 of 35
11:57:53
seized by the investigating agency in the course of the criminal investigation
and were subsequently submitted before the concerned criminal court, where
they came to be destroyed following conclusion of the criminal proceedings;
this, it was submitted, explained the DDA’s inability to produce the said
original records before the Labour Courts. It was accordingly prayed that the
writ petition filed by the DDA be allowed and the awards directing
reinstatement be set aside, and that the writ petitions filed by the workmen,
impugning awards that had dismissed their claims, be dismissed with costs.
Submissions on behalf of the Workmen:
15. Learned counsel appearing for the workmen in the connected matters
submitted that the factum of their employment with the DDA was never
seriously in dispute, what was in dispute was merely the legitimacy of that
employment. It was submitted that once the DDA itself admitted, whether
expressly or through its own witnesses, that the workmen had worked in its
establishments and drawn salary for several years, the onus shifted to the
DDA to prove its allegation that the appointments were founded on forged
or fabricated documents. Reliance was placed on the settled principle that
‘he who alleges fraud must prove it’, and it was contended that the Labour
Courts which placed the burden of disproving fraud on the workmen instead
of requiring the DDA to establish it had committed a fundamental error
going to the root of the matter.
16. It was further submitted, with reference to the evidence recorded
before Labour Court-XI in the Bhanwar Pal Singh matter, that the DDA’s
own management witness (MW-1) had admitted in cross-examination that
the workmen had drawn salary from the DDA for the period 1985 to 1990,
that the accounts of the DDA for the said period had been audited without
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:28.07.2026 W.P.(C) 1594/2007& other connected matters Page 10 of 35
11:57:53
any discrepancy being found, and that no departmental enquiry had been
initiated against any of the workmen. It was urged that this admission by the
DDA’s own witness was fatal to its case of forged appointment, since if
bogus employees had indeed been drawing salaries, the audited accounts
would necessarily have reflected some discrepancy.
17. It was submitted that the DDA had, at no stage, issued any charge-
sheet, granted any opportunity of hearing, or conducted any domestic
enquiry against any of the workmen before discontinuing their services.
Counsel relied upon the well-settled principle that even where an employer
alleges misconduct or fraud against a workman, the termination of services
without holding a domestic enquiry amounts in law to retrenchment, and
that such retrenchment, if effected without compliance with the mandatory
conditions prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 including
payment of retrenchment compensation and service of notice is rendered
illegal. It was submitted that since no enquiry had been held into the
allegation of forgery, the workmen could not have been dismissed otherwise
than by way of disciplinary action following such an enquiry, and the
termination of their services was accordingly illegal, arbitrary and violative
of the principles of natural justice.
18. It was next submitted that the persons who were named as accused in
the relevant FIRs including FIR No. 42/1990 registered at Police Station
Trilok Puri were not the workmen before the Labour Courts, and that those
who were so named and prosecuted had in any event been acquitted by the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate. It was submitted that in the absence of any
cogent evidence or documentary proof in support of the allegation of
forgery, and in the face of documentary evidence led by the workmen in the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:28.07.2026 W.P.(C) 1594/2007& other connected matters Page 11 of 35
11:57:53
form of appointment letters, identity cards, service records and salary
records, the finding of forgery returned by certain Labour Courts could not
be sustained.
ANALYSIS:
19. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at length and has
carefully perused the pleadings, the oral and documentary evidence led
before the learned Labour Courts, the impugned awards and the written
submissions placed on record.
20. Since all the present petitions arise out of substantially similar facts,
involve common questions of law and challenge awards rendered in respect
of workmen who claim to have entered the service of the Delhi
Development Authority (“DDA”) under identical circumstances, they were
heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
21. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it is necessary to identify
the precise controversy which falls for determination. At the outset, it
deserves notice that all the Labour Courts were confronted with substantially
the same factual narrative. The workmen asserted that they had initially
joined the services of the Delhi Development Authority in the year 1982,
were regularised sometime in 1985, continued to work till the year 1990 and
were thereafter prevented from discharging their duties without compliance
with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The defence of the
DDA, on the other hand, consistently was that none of the concerned
workmen had ever entered its service through any lawful process, that they
had allegedly secured entry into its establishment on the strength of forged
transfer orders and fabricated service records and consequently, no valid
relationship of employer and employee ever came into existence.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:28.07.2026 W.P.(C) 1594/2007& other connected matters Page 12 of 35
11:57:53
22. The record further reveals that save and except the award dated
07.12.2010 rendered by the learned Labour Court-XIX in the case of Bhan
Prakash Sharma &Ors., every Labour Court, upon appreciation of
substantially similar pleadings and evidence, returned a concurrent finding
that the workmen had failed to establish their claim of lawful employment
with the DDA. The award in Bhan Prakash Sharma alone has taken a
contrary view and directed reinstatement of the workmen with consequential
benefits. The correctness of this divergent approach, therefore, lies at the
heart of the present batch of petitions.
23. In the Bhan Prakash Sharma batch, the award dated 07.12.2010
passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-XIX in LIR No.
574/2006, concluded that once it was admitted that the workmen had
worked in the establishments of the DDA and no departmental enquiry had
preceded the cessation of their services, the management could not justify
the termination merely by alleging that the appointments were founded upon
forged documents. Proceeding on this reasoning, the Labour Court directed
reinstatement with continuity of service, full back wages and consequential
benefits, while simultaneously granting liberty to the DDA to hold an
enquiry in accordance with law with respect to the allegations of forgery
after reinstatement. The relevant portion of the award reads as under:
“Management has failed to examine any
witness/official to prove that the claimants herein were
not appointed by the management as per the
procedure. They have also failed to prove on record
that any of the workman had joined the service with the
management by any fraudulent means. The
management has miserably failed to prove on record
that any of the workman had forged and fabricated theSignature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:28.07.2026 W.P.(C) 1594/2007& other connected matters Page 13 of 35
11:57:53
transfer/relieving orders. The workmen who were
allegedly involved in criminal cases have been
acquitted by the concerned court.
[…]Therefore, they are entitled to reinstatement in
service with full back wages and consequential
benefits. The management is therefore directed to
reinstate all the seven workmen namely S/Sh. Bhan
Prakash, ShishuPal,,Pappu Sharma, Raja Ram,
Rajinder Singh, Tek Chand and Satish Kumar with full
back wages, continuity of service and consequential
benefits within a period of 30 days from the date of
publication of this award, failing which the
management shall have to pay interest @ 12% P.A. till
actual date of payment. However, the management
shall be at liberty to hold enquiry after affording
opportunity of being heard to the workmen and take
decision in respect of the alleged forgery/fabrication or
appointment letter/ transfer orders etc as per law.”
24. By contrast, in the other set of matters, particularly the award dated
25.01.2016 passed by Labour Court-XI in I.D. No. 2764/16 (the Bhanwar
Pal Singh batch) and the award dated 15.07.2006 passed by Labour Court-X
in I.D. No. 1001/1997 (the Jai Prakash batch), the Labour Courts proceeded
on a fundamentally different premise. Those Labour Courts held that the
workmen had failed to establish that they were lawfully appointed
employees of the DDA and that, in the absence of proof of a valid employer-
employee relationship, no occasion arose to examine the legality of the
alleged termination. Consequently, the references came to be answered
against the workmen. The relevant portion of the award of Labour Court-X
is reproduced hereunder:
“In the present case, the workmen have not led any
direct evidence to prove that they were employees ofSignature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:28.07.2026 W.P.(C) 1594/2007& other connected matters Page 14 of 35
11:57:53
the management. The case of the management is that
the workmen joined service on the basis of forged
transfer orders. In the present case, the workmen have
not examined the persons who had issued the transfer
orders. Nor the workmen have documents which have
been relied upon, have not been proved in accordance
with law and, apart from their affidavits, there is no
proof that the workmen were ever appointed by the
management.
[…] Therefore, under these circumstances, in my
considered opinion, the workmen have failed to prove
that they were ever employed by the management.
Consequently, the question of termination of their
services by the management does not arise at all.
Accordingly, this issue is decided against the workmen
and in favour of the management. The workmen are not
entitled to any relief. The reference is answered
accordingly and the award is passed.”
25. The question, therefore, is not whether two possible views could have
been taken on appreciation of evidence. The question is whether the
approach adopted in the solitary award rendered in Bhan Prakash Sharma
represents the correct exposition of law or whether the contrary approach
consistently adopted in the remaining awards is legally sustainable. The
resolution of this issue necessarily requires an examination of the principles
governing burden of proof in industrial adjudication.
ISSUE I: NATURE OF THE CONTROVERSY AND BURDEN OF
ESTABLISHING THE EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP
26. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the workmen vehemently
contended that the DDA never disputed that the workmen had actually
discharged duties in its establishment and had drawn salary for several
years. According to the workmen, once such facts stood admitted, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:28.07.2026 W.P.(C) 1594/2007& other connected matters Page 15 of 35
11:57:53
burden shifted upon the DDA to establish its allegation that the
appointments were founded upon forged documents. It was argued that fraud
is never presumed and must necessarily be proved by the party alleging it.
Consequently, it was submitted that the Labour Court in Bhan Prakash
Sharma correctly required the management to establish the alleged forgery,
whereas the remaining Labour Courts committed a jurisdictional error in
insisting that the workmen prove the legality of their appointments.
27. Per contra, Learned counsel appearing for the DDA contended that
the initial burden of proving the existence of an employer-employee
relationship invariably rests upon the workman and that the management
cannot be called upon to prove a negative. It was argued that none of the
workmen had produced any appointment letter or contemporaneous record
evidencing their engagement prior to the alleged transfer orders, and that
Labour Court-XIX committed a manifest error in casting the burden upon
the DDA to establish that the appointments were forged. Reliance was
placed on R.M. Yellatti v. Assistant Executive Engineer, (2006) 1 SCC 106
andKrishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. v. Mohammed Rafi, (2009) 11 SCC
522.
28. It is now too well settled to admit of any serious debate that the initial
burden of proving the existence of an employer-employee relationship lies
upon the person who asserts such a relationship. The Industrial Disputes Act
undoubtedly confers wide powers upon Labour Courts while appreciating
evidence, nevertheless, those powers do not dispense with the fundamental
principle that the party asserting a legal right must first establish the
foundational facts on which such right rests.
29. In Workmen of Nilgiri Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd. v. State
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:28.07.2026 W.P.(C) 1594/2007& other connected matters Page 16 of 35
11:57:53
of Tamil Nadu, (2004) 3 SCC 514, the Supreme Court observed that the
burden of proving the relationship of employer and employee primarily lies
upon the person who asserts its existence and that such burden cannot be
shifted merely because the employer disputes the claim. Similarly, in Range
Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani, (2002) 3 SCC 25, it was held that a self-
serving affidavit by the workman is not by itself sufficient to discharge the
burden and that cogent evidence must be produced to establish employment.
30. In R.M. Yellatti v. Assistant Executive Engineer., (2006) 1 SCC 106,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated and crystallised the law:
“…this Court has repeatedly taken the view that the
burden of proof is on the claimant to show that he had
worked for 240 days in a given year. This burden is
discharged only upon the workman stepping in the
witness box. This burden is discharged upon the
workman adducing cogent evidence, both oral and
documentary.”
31. This Court respectfully adopts the approach enunciated by the learned
Single Judge of this Court in Vinod Kumar v. DDA, W.P.(C) No.
2066/2011, judgment dated 08.12.2015, which arose from an almost
identical factual situation:
“16. At the outset, it may be made clear that the case of
the respondent/management is that the petitioner
secured appointment on the strength of forged or
fabricated document. As such, the burden of proof is on
the petitioner to prove that he secured his appointment
on the basis of genuine documents. Although no charge
sheet was served upon the petitioner but when the
matter was before the Labour Court, the basic
controversy was the genuineness of the appointment
order.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:28.07.2026 W.P.(C) 1594/2007& other connected matters Page 17 of 35
11:57:53
32. These authorities unmistakably lay down that before a workman can
seek the protection of the Industrial Disputes Act, he must first establish the
existence of a legally recognisable employer-employee relationship. Unless
such foundational fact is proved, the question whether the termination
violated the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act does not arise. Equally,
the employer cannot be called upon to prove the non-existence of such
relationship merely because the workman asserts it.
33. At this stage, it becomes necessary to notice an important distinction
which, in the opinion of this Court, has not received adequate attention in
the award rendered in Bhan Prakash Sharma. There exists a clear legal
distinction between proving that a person physically worked in an
establishment and proving that he entered such establishment pursuant to a
lawful appointment giving rise to an enforceable contract of employment.
The two expressions are not synonymous. Merely because a person is shown
to have discharged duties for a certain period or even received remuneration
would not, by itself, establish that he acquired the legal status of a workman
under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Act protects persons whose
engagement flows from a legally recognisable contract of employment.
Where the very genesis of such relationship is disputed, the workman must
first establish the legality of his induction into service before invoking the
statutory consequences flowing from termination.
34. The present batch precisely falls within this category. The DDA has
consistently maintained that the concerned workmen never entered service
through any valid process of recruitment and that their induction into its
establishment itself stood vitiated. Therefore, before any question regarding
retrenchment, domestic enquiry or violation of Section 25F of the Act could
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:28.07.2026 W.P.(C) 1594/2007& other connected matters Page 18 of 35
11:57:53
arise, the workmen were necessarily required to establish, by cogent
evidence, that they had in fact been lawfully appointed by the DDA.
35. The approach adopted by the Labour Court in Bhan Prakash Sharma,
however, effectively reversed this settled principle by requiring the DDA to
disprove employment before insisting that the workmen establish it. Such
reversal of burden, in the opinion of this Court, constitutes a manifest error
of law and materially affects the ultimate findings recorded therein.
36. It therefore becomes necessary to examine whether the evidence led
by the workmen was sufficient to discharge the initial burden resting upon
them. It is only if such burden stood discharged that any occasion would
arise to consider whether the management successfully rebutted the same.
ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE WORKMEN DISCHARGED THE
INITIAL BURDEN OF ESTABLISHING A VALID EMPLOYER-
EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP
37. Having delineated the legal position governing burden of proof, this
Court proceeds to examine whether the evidence led by the workmen was
sufficient to establish the foundational fact of a lawful employer-employee
relationship. Since the pleadings, documentary evidence and defence raised
by the parties in all the connected matters are substantially similar, it would
suffice to examine the evidence in the lead matter, namely Jai Prakash
&Ors., the findings whereof would equally govern the remaining connected
matters unless otherwise noticed.
38. A careful examination of the pleadings and evidence reveals that the
entire case set up by the workmen rests upon three assertions, namely:
(i) that they were initially appointed by the DDA sometime in the year
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:28.07.2026 W.P.(C) 1594/2007& other connected matters Page 19 of 35
11:57:53
1982;
(ii) that they came to be regularised in the year 1985; and
(iii) that they continued to discharge duties till the year 1990, when
they were allegedly prevented from reporting for work.
39. Significantly, while the workmen repeatedly asserted that they entered
service in the year 1982, no contemporaneous document evidencing such
initial appointment was brought on record. Neither before the Labour Court
nor before this Court has any workman produced an appointment order,
joining report, muster roll, attendance register, wage register, salary slip or
any contemporaneous official record pertaining to the period immediately
following the alleged appointment in 1982.
40. This omission assumes considerable significance. The dispute in the
present batch is not with regard to the nature of duties allegedly performed
by the workmen after they came to be shown in the records of the DDA, but
with regard to the legality of their very induction into service. Consequently,
the most material evidence which the workmen were required to produce
was evidence demonstrating the manner in which they initially entered the
establishment of the DDA. It is precisely this foundational evidence which is
conspicuously absent throughout the record.
41. The documentary evidence relied upon by the workmen substantially
commences only after the year 1985 and primarily consists of office orders,
transfer orders, identity cards, service book extracts, provident fund records
and subsequent administrative communications. Even assuming these
documents to have been exhibited before the Labour Court, they merely
indicate that at some stage the names of the concerned workmen came to
figure in certain departmental records. They do not, by themselves, establish
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:28.07.2026 W.P.(C) 1594/2007& other connected matters Page 20 of 35
11:57:53
the legality of the initial appointment.
42. It must be borne in mind that every subsequent document relied upon
by the workmen necessarily derives its evidentiary value from the validity of
the initial induction into service. Unless the foundational appointment itself
is proved, subsequent office orders, transfers, postings or salary entries
could only demonstrate their continuance in service; they cannot
independently establish that such service originated through a lawful
process, or that it thereafter continued legally.
43. The Labour Courts whose awards are under challenge in W.P.(C.)
Nos. 1594/2007, 6900/2012, 2858/2015, 612/2015, 8086/2016 and
5304/2023 have uniformly noticed this fundamental deficiency. They have
concurrently recorded that none of the workmen was able to produce any
contemporaneous record evidencing the initial appointment or joining in
service prior to the disputed transfer orders. This Court finds no perversity in
the said appreciation.
44. The evidentiary deficiency noticed above does not end with the
absence of records relating to the initial engagement. The next stage of the
workmen’s own pleaded case, namely, their alleged regularisation in the year
1985, is equally unsupported by any contemporaneous material. Every
workman has consistently pleaded that after rendering service on muster
rolls between 1982 and 1985, he was regularised by the DDA and thereafter
continued as a permanent employee. However, not a single workman has
produced any office order, memorandum, circular, establishment record or
any contemporaneous document evidencing such regularisation.
45. Regularisation in a statutory authority such as the DDA is not an
informal administrative act. It necessarily results in the issuance of an order
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:28.07.2026 W.P.(C) 1594/2007& other connected matters Page 21 of 35
11:57:53
by the competent authority and finds reflection in the establishment records
of the organisation. Ordinarily, such regularisation would also entail
consequential changes in the service book, seniority list, work-charge
establishment, pay records and other administrative registers. Yet, the record
is completely silent in this regard. Neither the alleged order of regularisation
nor any record evidencing conversion from muster roll employment to
regular service has been produced. The workmen also made no endeavour to
summon the relevant establishment records or examine any officer from the
Establishment Branch who could substantiate the plea of regularisation.
46. The significance of this omission cannot be understated. The plea of
regularisation is not a peripheral assertion but constitutes a central plank of
the workmen’s case. It is on the basis of this plea that they assert the status
of permanent employees and seek to distinguish themselves from casual or
daily-rated workers. Once such a plea was specifically taken, the burden
rested upon the workmen to establish the factual basis thereof by producing
the best available evidence. The complete absence of any documentary or
oral evidence on this aspect leaves the plea wholly unsubstantiated.
47. Learned counsel appearing for the workmen sought to contend that
the subsequent departmental records, including service books, provident
fund records, salary registers and transfer orders, sufficiently establish that
the workmen had been regular employees of the DDA. This Court is unable
to agree with this contention.
48. A careful examination of the documentary evidence relied upon by
the workmen reveals that almost the entire documentary edifice commences
only after the stage at which, according to the management, the workmen
entered different divisions of the DDA on the strength of the disputed
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:28.07.2026 W.P.(C) 1594/2007& other connected matters Page 22 of 35
11:57:53
transfer ordersin the year 1987. None of these documents explains how the
workmen entered service in February 1982, how they remained on muster
rolls till 1985 or how they came to be regularised thereafter. Consequently,
these documents cannot be treated as substitutes for the foundational
evidence which the workmen were required to produce. There is absolutely
no document placed or proved on record by workmen for their employment
with the DDA, prior to the alleged transfer orders in 1987.
49. In the Jai Prakash batch [W.P.(C) No. 1594/2007 arising from I.D.
No. 1001/1997 before Labour Court-X, Karkardooma, considerable reliance
was placed upon photocopies of service books, personal files, offer letters,
joining reports, attestation forms, office orders and performance reports.
However, admittedly, no original records were produced. More importantly,
none of the officers who allegedly issued these documents was examined.
The authors of these documents were never produced before the Labour
Court, nor were the records proved through the custodians maintaining the
original establishment files. On the contrary, management witnesses MW-1
Sh. S.C. Jain, Superintendent Engineer, and MW-2 Sh. Hawa Singh,
Executive Engineer, both appeared before the Labour Court, were cross-
examined, and specifically deposed that the workmen had entered DDA’s
service on the basis of forged and bogus transfer orders. Whether the
management’s allegation ultimately stood established or not is not the
immediate question. The more fundamental question is whether the
workmen discharged the burden of proving the genuineness and authenticity
of the documents upon which they themselves relied. In the considered
opinion of this Court, they did not.
50. It is settled law that the mere marking of a document as an exhibit
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:28.07.2026 W.P.(C) 1594/2007& other connected matters Page 23 of 35
11:57:53
does not dispense with the requirement of proving its execution or
authenticity. In SaitTarajeeKhimchand v. Yelamarti Satyam, (1972) 4 SCC
562, the Supreme Court observed that the mere admission of a document in
evidence does not amount to proof of its contents. The same principle was
reiterated in LIC of India v. Ram Pal Singh Bisen, (2010) 4 SCC 491,
wherein it was held that exhibiting a document cannot be equated with
proving the truth of its contents. The relevant paragraph is reproduced
hereinbelow:
“25. We are of the firm opinion that mere admission of
a document in evidence does not amount to its proof. In
other words, mere marking of exhibit on a document
does not dispense with its proof, which is required to
be done in accordance with law.”
51. Though proceedings before the Labour Court are not shackled by the
strict technicalities of the Indian Evidence Act, the fundamental principles
governing proof of documentary evidence cannot altogether be ignored.
Documents which form the very basis of the workmen’s claim must still
inspire confidence and be shown to be genuine by acceptable evidence.
52. Similar infirmities are noticed in the remaining connected matters. In
the Bhanwar Pal Singh batch [W.P.(C) No. 8086/2016, arising from I.D.
No. 2764/16 before Labour Court-XI, Karkardooma], the provident fund
records relied upon are illustrative. The GPF book of Bhanwar Pal (Ex.
WW1/12), which was strongly relied upon to establish continuity of service,
itself commences from March, 1986. Thus, even this document does not
support the pleaded case regarding service from February, 1982 till the
alleged regularisation in 1985. During cross-examination, Bhanwar Pal
admitted that the GPF entries commence only from the year 1986 and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:28.07.2026 W.P.(C) 1594/2007& other connected matters Page 24 of 35
11:57:53
further admitted that he was unable to produce any document evidencing his
service between 1982 and 1985. Far from filling the evidentiary gap noticed
above, the document reinforces it.
53. The evidentiary value of the said GPF record is further diluted by the
fact that it was not proved through the concerned Drawing and Disbursing
Officer or any official maintaining the original provident fund records. It
was also elicited during cross-examination that the document bore the
initials “DA/ED-4” and not those of the divisions where the workman
claimed to have been posted. Similar deficiencies are discernible in the
provident fund records relied upon by the remaining workmen. In the
absence of proof through the competent authority maintaining the statutory
records, such documents cannot be regarded as conclusive proof of lawful
appointment.
54. The salary records relied upon by the workmen also do not carry the
matter any further. In the Bhanwar Pal Singh batch, the salary records
proved through WW-10, Sh. Ram Kishan Nain, Clerk of Eastern Division-9,
DDA, pertain only to the period November, 1988 to September, 1989.
Accordingly, even the witness summoned by the workmen establishes
nothing with regard to the period between 1982 and 1985. These records
establish, at the highest, that wages were disbursed after the workmen had
already come to be reflected in the records of the concerned division. They
do not establish the manner in which the workmen entered service in 1982
or the circumstances in which they allegedly came to be regularised in 1985.
55. Learned counsel appearing for the workmen urged, with particular
emphasis in the context of the Bhanwar Pal Singh batch, that MW-1 Sh.
Ashok Dhingra, Executive Engineer, had admitted in cross-examination that
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:28.07.2026 W.P.(C) 1594/2007& other connected matters Page 25 of 35
11:57:53
salary was drawn by the workmen from the DDA for the period 1985 to
1990, and that the accounts of the DDA for the said period had been audited.
It was contended that if bogus employees had indeed been drawing salaries,
the audited accounts would necessarily have disclosed a discrepancy, and
the absence of any such discrepancy amounted to an admission in favour of
the workmen. This submission cannot be accepted. The admission of MW-1
was that salary was drawn from 1985 that is, from a period after the
workmen had already entered different divisions of the DDA on the strength
of the disputed transfer orders. Payment of salary from 1985 onwards is
entirely consistent with DDA’s own case that certain individuals managed to
enter its establishments on the basis of forged documents and continued to
draw wages until the forgery was detected in 1989-90. Such payment does
not, and cannot, validate the manner of initial entry into service. As for the
audit point, MW-1 specifically stated in cross-examination that he did not
know whether the auditor had noticed any discrepancy, that is not an
admission that no discrepancy existed. It is merely an acknowledgement of
the limits of his personal knowledge, having joined the Eastern Division
only on 25.06.2009. Payment of salary during a subsequent period cannot,
by itself, establish the legality of the initial induction into service.
56. The oral evidence led by the workmen across the connected matters
also fails to bridge the evidentiary gap. During cross-examination, several
workmen were unable to furnish complete particulars regarding the officers
under whom they allegedly worked during the period from 1982 onwards. In
the Bhan Prakash Batch, references were made only to “Mr. Jain”, “Mr.
Minocha”, “Mr. Sharma” or similar partial descriptions without disclosing
the complete names, designations or postings of the officers concerned. In
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:28.07.2026 W.P.(C) 1594/2007& other connected matters Page 26 of 35
11:57:53
one instance, in the Bhanwar Pal Singh batch, the workman Giri Raj
candidly admitted that he did not know the name of any officer under whom
he had worked in the relevant division.
57. This Court is conscious that lapse of time may affect human memory.
It would, therefore, be wholly inappropriate to reject the testimony of a
witness merely because he is unable to recollect every administrative detail
after several decades. However, that is not the position obtaining in the
present case. The inability of the workmen is not confined to minor
particulars. They have failed to identify, with any reasonable degree of
specificity, the officers who allegedly appointed them, supervised them or
regularised their services during the very period when the employer-
employee relationship is stated to have come into existence. Such vague
references to officers identified merely by surname could neither enable the
Court to verify the assertions nor permit the management to effectively
respond by examining the concerned officials. The burden of establishing
employment cannot be discharged by furnishing incomplete particulars and
thereafter inviting the Court to draw an adverse inference against the
management for not examining unidentified officers.
58. The cumulative effect of the evidence, therefore, admits of little
ambiguity. There is no documentary evidence regarding the alleged
appointment in February, 1982, no contemporaneous record evidencing
muster roll service between 1982 and 1985, no document proving the
alleged regularisation in 1985, no contemporaneous salary record,
attendance register or wage register pertaining to the foundational period,
and no satisfactory oral evidence explaining the circumstances in which the
workmen entered service. The documentary evidence relied upon by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:28.07.2026 W.P.(C) 1594/2007& other connected matters Page 27 of 35
11:57:53
workmen substantially commences only after the stage at which they had
already entered different divisions of the DDA and, therefore, cannot by
itself establish the legality of the initial appointment. The very foundation of
the workmen’s case thus remains unsupported by cogent evidence.
59. Once this conclusion is reached, the legal consequence follows almost
inevitably. The burden which initially rested upon the workmen never stood
discharged. Consequently, the onus never shifted upon the management to
establish the precise manner in which the workmen entered service or to
conclusively prove its allegation of fraud. It is a settled principle that a
plaintiff or claimant must succeed on the strength of his own case and not on
the weakness of the defence. The workmen having failed to establish the
foundational facts upon which their claim rests, the alleged shortcomings in
the evidence led by the management cannot, by themselves, entitle them to
relief.
60. The Labour Courts, except in Bhan Prakash Sharma, appreciated
these deficiencies in their proper perspective and consequently held that the
workmen had failed to discharge the initial burden resting upon them. This
Court finds no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in such
appreciation.
ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE AWARD DATED 07.12.2010 PASSED IN
BHAN PRAKASH SHARMA SUFFERS FROM PERVERSITY
WARRANTING INTERFERENCE UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION
61. Having held that the workmen failed to discharge the initial burden of
establishing their lawful induction into the service of the DDA, this Court
now proceeds to examine the correctness of the award dated 07.12.2010
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:28.07.2026 W.P.(C) 1594/2007& other connected matters Page 28 of 35
11:57:53
passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-XIX in Bhan Prakash
Sharma, which alone has taken a view contrary to all the remaining Labour
Courts.
62. It is trite that while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution, this Court does not sit as a court of appeal over awards
rendered by Labour Courts. Re-appreciation of evidence merely because
another view is possible is impermissible. Interference is justified only
where the findings recorded are perverse, based on no evidence, founded
upon inadmissible material, or suffer from manifest errors of law apparent
on the face of the record. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in
Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan, AIR 1964 SC 477, authoritatively
held that though the High Court cannot substitute itself as an appellate
forum, it would nevertheless be justified in exercising certiorari jurisdiction
where findings are vitiated by manifest errors of law apparent on the face of
the record or where material evidence has either been ignored or
misconstrued. It is on these well-settled parameters that the award in Bhan
Prakash Sharma is required to be examined.
63. As noticed hereinbefore, the said award constitutes the solitary
exception amongst the several awards rendered in relation to workmen
claiming appointment under the same set of circumstances. While every
other Labour Court proceeded upon the footing that the workmen were first
required to establish the legality of their induction into service before
seeking the protection of the Industrial Disputes Act, the learned Labour
Court-XIX adopted a fundamentally different approach.
64. A careful reading of the impugned award demonstrates that the
learned Labour Court proceeded on a legal premise fundamentally different
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:28.07.2026 W.P.(C) 1594/2007& other connected matters Page 29 of 35
11:57:53
from that adopted in the remaining connected matters. Instead of first
examining whether the workmen had discharged the initial burden of
proving their lawful appointment, the Labour Court proceeded to examine
whether the management had succeeded in proving its allegation that the
appointments were founded on forged documents. The focus of the enquiry
thus shifted from the workmen’s case to the management’s defence.
65. Such an approach, is contrary to the settled principles governing
burden of proof discussed hereinabove. The failure of the management to
conclusively establish fraud could not, by itself, relieve the workmen of the
obligation to prove the legality of their own induction into service. As the
initial burden to prove the existence of employer-employee relationship was
on the workman and the burden to prove employment by fraud would shift
on the management only after initial burden is discharged by the workmen.
The workmen could succeed only on the strength of their own evidence and
not on the perceived weakness of the management’s case.
66. The learned Labour Court further appears to have treated subsequent
departmental records, including salary records, provident fund entries and
other service-related documents, as sufficient proof of lawful appointment.
However, as already discussed, these documents merely evidence that the
workmen came to be reflected in certain departmental records after the
disputed transfer orders. They do not establish how the workmen initially
entered service in 1982 or how they came to be regularised in 1985. The
distinction between proof of subsequent continuance in service and proof of
lawful induction into service is fundamental and, in the opinion of this
Court, was overlooked by the learned Labour Court.
67. The direction permitting the DDA to reinstate the workmen and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:28.07.2026 W.P.(C) 1594/2007& other connected matters Page 30 of 35
11:57:53
thereafter hold a departmental enquiry also proceeds on an assumption that a
valid employer-employee relationship already stood established. Such an
assumption could not have been made in the absence of proof regarding the
very appointment of the workmen. A departmental enquiry presupposes the
existence of a lawful contract of employment. Where that foundational
relationship itself remained unproved, the question of directing
reinstatement solely for the purpose of holding a disciplinary enquiry did not
arise.
68. The Labour Court also appears to have attached considerable
significance to the absence of conviction in the criminal proceedings and the
inability of the management witnesses to conclusively establish forgery.
Neither circumstance could dispense with the workmen’s obligation to
independently prove their appointment before the Labour Court. Criminal
proceedings and industrial adjudication operate in different fields and are
governed by different standards of proof. The absence of a criminal
conviction cannot, therefore, be treated as proof of a valid appointment. In
Kishan Singh (Dead) through LRs. v. Gurpal Singh, AIR 2010 SC 3624,
the Supreme Court reiterated that findings recorded in criminal proceedings
neither conclude nor govern civil proceedings and vice versa, the standard of
proof in the two jurisdictions being materially different. Thus, even
assuming that the criminal proceedings did not culminate in conviction, such
circumstance does not dispense with the obligation resting upon the
workmen to independently establish their lawful appointment before the
Labour Court.
69. Equally untenable is the contention founded upon Section 25F of the
Industrial Disputes Act. A careful reading of the pleadings as well as the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:28.07.2026 W.P.(C) 1594/2007& other connected matters Page 31 of 35
11:57:53
evidence led by the workmen reveals that their consistent case was that they
were regular and permanent employees of the DDA. They neither pleaded
nor sought to establish that they had completed 240 days of continuous
service during the twelve calendar months immediately preceding the
alleged termination. No issue was framed on that basis, nor was any
evidence led with a view to establish compliance with the statutory
requirement. Consequently, the question of examining alleged non-
compliance with Section 25F does not arise.
70. Even otherwise, the protection contained in Section 25F presupposes
that the claimant has established his status as a workman whose services
have been retrenched by the employer. Where the foundational employer-
employee relationship itself remains unproved, the provisions relating to
retrenchment cannot be invoked in isolation. The issue of compliance with
Section 25F, therefore, becomes wholly academic once the workmen fail to
establish the existence of a lawful employment relationship.
71. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the award dated 07.12.2010 passed by the learned Labour Court-XIX
suffers from a manifest error in the application of the settled principles
governing burden of proof and appreciation of evidence. By treating post-
induction departmental records as sufficient proof of lawful appointment, by
overlooking the complete absence of evidence relating to the period between
1982 and 1985, and by effectively requiring the management to disprove the
workmen’s case before the workmen had discharged their own burden, the
learned Labour Court adopted a legal approach contrary to the law
consistently laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The findings
recorded therein, therefore, cannot be sustained.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:28.07.2026 W.P.(C) 1594/2007& other connected matters Page 32 of 35
11:57:53
72. The remaining awards, however, stand on an entirely different
footing. A perusal thereof demonstrates that the concerned Labour Courts
correctly appreciated that the initial burden rested upon the workmen and
proceeded to examine whether such burden had been discharged by cogent
evidence. Upon finding that the evidence relating to the alleged appointment
and regularisation was wholly deficient, the references came to be rejected.
This Court finds no perversity, patent illegality or jurisdictional error in the
approach adopted by those Labour Courts. Their conclusions are supported
by the material available on record and do not warrant interference in the
exercise of supervisory jurisdiction.
73. It is equally necessary to observe that the Court is not required, in the
facts of the present case, to record any positive finding regarding the
allegations of fraud or forgery levelled by the management. Such allegations
constitute the defence set up by the DDA. The adjudication of the present
petitions does not turn upon whether the management succeeded in proving
every circumstance relied upon in support of that defence. The petitions can
be effectively decided on the anterior and more fundamental ground that the
workmen themselves failed to establish the essential facts giving rise to the
employer-employee relationship asserted by them. Once that conclusion is
reached, the necessity of entering into a detailed examination of the
allegations of fraud substantially diminishes.
74. The Court is also conscious that industrial jurisprudence ordinarily
leans in favour of protecting workmen against arbitrary deprivation of
livelihood. However, the liberal approach consistently adopted in industrial
adjudication does not authorise the Court to dispense with proof of facts
which constitute the very basis of the claim. Sympathy, howsoever genuine,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:28.07.2026 W.P.(C) 1594/2007& other connected matters Page 33 of 35
11:57:53
cannot replace evidence. The beneficial object of labour legislation cannot
be extended to the point where the Court presumes the existence of an
employer-employee relationship despite the complete absence of
contemporaneous evidence relating to the pleaded appointment and
regularisation.
CONCLUSION:
75. Having examined the entire material on record, this Court is satisfied
that the workmen have failed to establish, by cogent and reliable evidence,
that they were lawfully appointed by the DDA in February, 1982, that they
continuously worked on muster rolls till 1985 or that they were thereafter
regularised by the competent authority. The complete absence of
contemporaneous records relating to this crucial period, the failure to
produce any document evidencing regularisation, the inability of the
documentary evidence relied upon by the workmen to bridge the evidentiary
gap relating to the foundational period and the deficiencies noticed in the
oral evidence cumulatively lead to the irresistible conclusion that the
foundational employer-employee relationship pleaded by the workmen has
remained unproved.
76. Consequently, the learned Labour Courts which dismissed the
references cannot be said to have committed any jurisdictional error,
perversity or patent illegality warranting interference under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution. Their approach is consistent with the settled
principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court governing burden of
proof in industrial disputes and discloses a proper appreciation of the
evidence available on record.
77. The award dated 07.12.2010 passed by the learned Labour Court-XIX
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:28.07.2026 W.P.(C) 1594/2007& other connected matters Page 34 of 35
11:57:53
in Bhan Prakash Sharma, however, cannot be sustained. The learned Labour
Court proceeded on the erroneous premise that the burden shifted upon the
management merely because the workmen had produced certain
departmental records pertaining to a subsequent period. In doing so, it
overlooked the complete absence of evidence regarding the alleged
appointment in 1982 and regularisation in 1985, treated documents
incapable of proving lawful induction into service as sufficient proof of
employment and effectively required the management to disprove the
workmen’s case before the workmen had discharged their own burden. The
award is, therefore, vitiated by a manifest error in the application of settled
legal principles and consequently suffers from perversity warranting
interference in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction.
78. For the aforesaid reasons, W.P.(C.) No. 3938/2011 preferred by the
Delhi Development Authority is liable to be allowed. The award dated
07.12.2010 passed by the learned Labour Court-XIX in LIR No. 574/2006 is
accordingly set aside.
79. W.P.(C.) Nos. 1594/2007, 6900/2012, 2858/2015, 612/2015,
8086/2016 and 5304/2023, preferred by the respective workmen challenging
the awards dismissing their claims, are devoid of merit and are accordingly
dismissed.
80. The pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. There shall
be no order as to costs.
SHAIL JAIN
JUDGE
JULY 27, 2026/dg
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:28.07.2026 W.P.(C) 1594/2007& other connected matters Page 35 of 35
11:57:53
