Onus To Establish Employee-Employer Relationship Rests On the Claimant: Delhi High Court

A single-judge bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh while deciding a writ petition in the case of Sunil Kumar & Ors. v. The State & Ors. has reiterated that the onus to establish the relationship of employee-employer between the management and the workman is on the claimant, i.e., the person who sets up a plea of existence of such relationship between the parties.

Background of Facts

Sunil Kumar (Petitioner) joined the service of M/s. JSK Wire Harness (Respondent) on 1^st September 1992. The Respondent management then terminated the services of the Petitioner on 3^rd August 2011 leading the Petitioner to file a complaint alleging illegal termination before the Regional Labour Commissioner. The Regional Labour Commissioner ordered the Respondent to take the Petitioner back in service however, due to non-payment of the earnest wages for the period of June 2011 to September 2011, the Petitioner through the trade union sent a legal demand notice. Further, the Petitioner filed applications under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, alleging default in payment by the Respondent. However, the Labour court held that the Petitioner failed to establish the existence of employer-employee relationship for the concerned period and as such was not entitled to the earned wages claimed in the present applications. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the Petitioner filed the present writ petition.

It was contended by the Petitioner inter alia, that the Labour Court had not adjudicated the matter in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Petitioner contended that the matter being civil in nature had to be decided on preponderance of probabilities. Considering this principle, the Labour Court ought to have deduced from the 'attendance card' of November 2011 that the Petitioner was employed during the period for which he seeks payment of wages.

On the other hand, the Respondent contended, inter alia that the settled position of law that the onus to prove that the Petitioner was in service of the Respondent is upon the claimant, i.e., the Petitioner itself. Further, the claimant had failed to establish any evidence to support his claim of being employed under the Respondent for the period of June 2011 to September 2011, for which he seeks payment of earnest wages.

Findings of the Court

The court observed that the Labour Courts had in fact considered the entirety of the matter in reaching the conclusion that the Petitioner failed to establish record of his employment with the Respondent during the period for which payment of wages was claimed. Further the Court stated that the attendance card for the month of November 2011 was irrelevant since the wages sought were for a period prior to the month of November.

Reliance was placed on the judgement of Kanpur Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. V. Shamim Mirza wherein the Supreme Court held that it was upon the claimant to prove his employment with the employer. Further, the court also relied on the judgement of Babu Ram v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), wherein it was held that it is a well settled principle of law that the burden would be on him who sets up a plea of existence of relationship of employer and employee.

The court was further of the view that as per the settled position of law, the claimant must prove the existence of the employee-employer relationship by way of either direct evidence, and/or through circumstantial evidence of incidental/ancillary nature, which the Petitioner failed to do.

With the aforementioned observations, the court dismissed the petition.

Case: Sunil Kumar & Ors. v. The State & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 386

Case No. W.P. (C) 2931/2024

Counsels for the Applicant: Appearance not given.

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Rahul Kumar Verma, Mr. Pankaj Kumar

Click Here To Read/Download Order