Does the burden of proving an employer-employee relationship lie on the person who sets up that plea?

Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 — S.10(1) — Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — S.2-A — Contract labour — Employer-employee relationship with the principal employer — Genuine labour contract — Burden of proof — Adverse inference — Relief not sought — Permanent status — Contract labour — Genuine contract — Principal employer — Held: Where both the principal employer and the contractor are registered under the Contract Labour Act, no prohibition notification under s.10(1) has issued and the labour contract is genuine and neither sham nor nominal, the workmen are employees of the contractor and of none other. Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. v. Ramcharan, followed; SAIL v. National Union Waterfront Workers, distinguished. (¶50, 62, 75, 82) Industrial law — Burden of proof — Adverse inference — Held further: The burden of proving an employer-employee relationship lies on the person who sets up that plea. An adverse inference under s.114(g) of the Evidence Act for non-production cannot be drawn where no finding is rendered that the documents are required and no notice to produce under Or.XII r.8 CPC was issued. Workmen of Nilgiri Coop. Marketing Society, followed. (¶65, 66, 73, 76, 77) Writ jurisdiction — Relief never sought — Held further: The learned Single Judge could not declare the workmen permanent or fasten joint compensation on the principal employer on a relief never sought before the Labour Court. Management's appeals allowed; workmen's appeals dismissed. (¶79, 80, 81, 83, 84)