The burden of proving 'workman' status under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act lies on the party asserting it.

The Respondent-Union filed a complaint (ULP No. 146/2019) under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, challenging disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Appellant-employer against certain employees

The Appellant filed an objection (Exhibit C/8) contending that the employees were not "workmen" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes (ID) Act, 1947, rendering the complaint non-maintainable

The Industrial Court initially rejected the objection and refused to frame a preliminary issue

On challenge, the High Court directed the Industrial Court to frame a preliminary issue but phrased it in a manner that appeared to cast the burden of proof on the employer to prove the employees were covered by the ID Act

The employer appealed, arguing this inversion of the burden of proof was legally erroneous

1. Whether the High Court erred in its phrasing of the preliminary issue by ostensibly casting the burden of proof on the employer to establish the status of the employees as "workmen"

2. Whether the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the employer could continue pending the adjudication of the preliminary issue

the principle of Ei incumbit probation qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof lies on the one who asserts, not on the one who denies), as embodied in Section 104 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (formerly Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872)

In industrial law, when an employer challenges the status of a complainant, the burden lies on the claimant/Union to prove they meet the definition of a "workman" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to invoke the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court

The Supreme Court observed that while the High Court’s phrasing in paragraph 11(a) was imprecise and "ostensibly incorrect," it was a result of inadvertent phrasing rather than a misunderstanding of law

The Court noted that the Union had itself agreed to have the status decided as a preliminary issue

The Court clarified that since the Union asserts the right to relief under labor statutes, it is the Union’s cardinal responsibility to prove the jurisdictional fact—that the employees are indeed "workmen"

If the Union fails to discharge this burden, the complaint must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

Consequently, the Court found it necessary to modify the phrasing of the issue to correctly reflect that the burden of proof lies on the "complainant-union"

The Court directed the Industrial Court to decide this as a preliminary issue by October 31, 2026

the employer may conclude the enquiries; however, final orders can only be passed immediately if the preliminary issue is decided against the Union. If decided in favor of the Union, the employer must seek permission from the Industrial Court before passing final disciplinary orders