It is another recruitment season. Many business owners believe that as long as they sign a labor contract with their employees, they will establish a labor relationship instead of a labor relationship, which can reduce the cost of employment. But is this the case? A few days ago, the People's Court of Huaiyin District, Jinan City, Shandong Province tried a labor dispute case involving this issue. Baoning Company is a security service company. In May 2020, Lao Liu signed a labor contract with Baoning Company. It was agreed that from May 1, 2020 to April 30, 2022, Lao Liu would be engaged in security work in Baoning Company, with a monthly salary of 2400 yuan, three shifts per day, and work according to the shift schedule. The contract specifies Lao Liu's job responsibilities, rules and regulations that must be followed, and the company's rights and obligations. On June 5, 2021, Lao Liu was injured when he was at work, and was admitted to hospital and diagnosed as spinal cord injury. Later, Lao Liu sent three sick leave certificates issued by the hospital to Zhang Mou, the person in charge of the company, for a total of 45 days. On July 5 of the same year, Baoning Company sent a notice to Lao Liu, stating that Lao Liu had an accident due to his participation in work unrelated to the work of the security guard, and failed to issue a leave note according to the company's regulations, which was considered as absenteeism without permission. He was required to report to the company within three days, otherwise the labor contract between the two parties would be automatically terminated. On July 10, 2021, Baoning Company terminated the labor contract with Lao Liu. Lao Liu applied to the labor and personnel dispute arbitration committee for arbitration. The arbitration commission ruled that Lao Liu had a labor relationship with Baoning from May 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021; Baoning Company paid Lao Liu 7000 yuan of compensation for illegal termination of labor contract. Baoning Company disagreed with the ruling, believed that it had signed a labor contract with Lao Liu, claimed that Lao Liu had enjoyed retirement benefits, that the two parties had established a labor relationship, and that there was no problem of illegally terminating the labor contract, and requested the court to revoke the ruling. The focus of the dispute in this case is whether there is a labor relationship between Lao Liu and Baoning Company, and whether Baoning Company should pay compensation for illegal termination of labor contract to Lao Liu. After hearing, the court held that although the name of the contract signed by Lao Liu and Baoning Company was a labor contract, Baoning Company claimed that Lao Liu was entitled to retirement benefits, and Lao Liu did not accept it. Baoning Company did not submit corresponding evidence, and from the perspective of Lao Liu's age, he also did not reach retirement age, so both parties were labor contract subjects in accordance with labor laws and regulations. After joining Baoning Company, Lao Liu was engaged in security work and was under the management of Baoning Company. Both parties agreed on the work content, contract term, labor remuneration, contract termination conditions, etc. in the contract. Baoning Company also paid Lao Liu wages on a monthly basis. According to the provisions of Article 17 of the Labor Contract Law, the contract involved in the case clearly stipulates the necessary provisions of the labor contract. Therefore, the court found that Lao Liu and Baoning Company conformed to the characteristics of labor relations and constituted a substantive labor relationship. Baoning Company claimed that Lao Liu's absence from work for three days was a serious violation of the company's rules and regulations, and his termination of the contract was legal, so he should not pay compensation. The court held that according to the provisions of Article 44 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Legal Issues Applicable to the Trial of Labor Dispute Cases (I), Baoning Company should bear the burden of proof that its labor contract was legally terminated. According to old Liu Ti