1. Petitioners-workmen alleged that they were in the employment of respondent No. 1-management. They used to work on temporary basis for one to three months respectively. This act of respondent No. 1 was in violation of principles of the Act. Besides this, they were not given the legal facilities which they were entitled to under the Act. Their services were illegally terminated without complying the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act, for short). Petitioners claimed reinstatement with back wages along with continuity of service. 2. Secretary (Labour) referred the disputes between the parties to Labour Court, Delhi for adjudication in the following terms: "Whether the services of S/Sh. Sukh Ram, Ram Nath, Ram Saware, Ram Klshore, Jhinkan, Sheetla Prasad, Prabhu Sharma, Mangaru Lai, Ramdeen, Ram Karan, Raj Narain, Jahangir, Narender, Ravi, Mehrab, Ram Kumar, Kamla Prasad, Kodai, Ram Kishan, Rame, Panch Ram, Jawahar, Hariya, Hriday Ram, Ganga Ram, Ram Awadh, Bhawani Pher, Kali Prasad, Sita Ram and Ram Kesh have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect." 3. Per contra, respondent No.1 alleged in its written statement that there was no employer-employee relationship between the parties. There was no firm by the name of M/s Guptaji Tent House, C-7, Shopping Center, Nimri Colony, Bharat Nagar, Delhi as was alleged by the petitioners. Petitioners had been working as a casual worker at different places during marriage season. 4. Industrial Adjudicator framed following issues on 10th January, 1995: "1. Whether there is no firm at the given address and if so its effect? 2. Whether there is no employer/employee relationship between the parties? 3. As per the terms of reference." 5. Parties were afforded opportunity to lead evidence. Upon scrutiny of evidence adduced by the parties Industrial Adjudicator has returned a categorical finding that petitioners had failed to prove existence of employer-employee relationship between the parties. They had also failed to prove that respondent No.1 existed at the given address. By placing reliance on Workmen of Neelgiri Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2004 LLR 351 (Supreme Court), Industrial Adjudicator has held that it was for the petitioners to have proved the existence of employer-employee relationship. The burden to prove was on the petitioners which they had failed to discharge. By placing reliance on Workmen of Neelgiri Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2004 LLR 351 (Supreme Court), Industrial Adjudicator has held that it was for the petitioners to have proved the existence of employer-employee relationship. The burden to prove was on the petitioners which they had failed to discharge. 6. It is well settled that scope of interference by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited. This Court cannot interfere with the Award and take a view other than what has been taken by the Industrial Adjudicator on appreciation of evidence. If the award is based on some evidence this Court would refrain from interfering with the same. I do not find this case to be based on no evidence nor there appears to be any perversity in the view taken by the Industrial Adjudicator. The onus to prove employer-employee relationship was on the petitioners which they failed to discharge. Mere bald statement by the petitioners in this regard was not sufficient to prove the employer-employee relationship between the parties. Something more was required in the shape of documents, that is, appointment letters, payment vouchers, etc. to indicate that they had in fact been in the employment of respondent No. 1 and had worked with it continuously for a period of 240 days in a year preceding the date of termination. 7. In view of the above discussions, writ petition is dismissed.