Employer Discharging Onus to Rebut Employment Relationship Must Offer Cogent Evidence Beyond Mere Denial

The respondent-workman, a driver, filed a claim alleging he was employed by the petitioners since 2003 at a monthly wage of Rs. 16,000/- and was illegally terminated on 23.07.2015 without notice or compensation in violation of Section 25F of the ID Act.

The Labour Court, vide award dated 19.03.2018, ordered reinstatement with full back wages.

The petitioners challenged this award, contending that no employer-employee relationship existed and that the workman had voluntarily resigned after a full and final settlement.

1. Whether an employer-employee relationship existed between the workman and the petitioners.

2. Whether the termination of the workman’s services was in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.

3. Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, should interfere with the findings of the Labour Court.

The court applied Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, which mandates notice and retrenchment compensation for valid termination.

The court relied on Indraprastha Gas Ltd. v. Ambrish Kumar, establishing that the initial burden to prove the employment relationship lies with the workman.

On the scope of judicial review under Article 226, the court cited Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan, International Airport Authority of India v. International Air Cargo Workers Union, and Ritz Theatre Private Limited v. Ramesh Chandra, which restrict interference to cases of lack of jurisdiction, perversity, or violation of natural justice.

The Court observed that the workman successfully discharged his initial burden of proof by producing an identity card and salary certificate.

Conversely, the management failed to rebut this evidence; specifically, petitioner no. 1 did not testify to support the claim that the driver was a personal rather than corporate employee.

The Court noted that the management’s plea of "voluntary abandonment" logically presupposed the existence of an employment relationship.

Furthermore, the petitioners failed to produce original records of a "full and final settlement" or evidence of compliance with Section 25F.

Applying the limited scope of writ jurisdiction, the Court found no perversity in the Labour Court’s findings as they were rooted in the evidence on record.

The High Court upheld the Labour Court's award of reinstatement with full back wages. The writ petition was dismissed as the Court found no illegality or perversity warranting interference under Article 226.