Burden Of Proving Employer-Employee Relationship Primarily Rests Upon Who Asserts Its Existence: Himachal Pradesh High Court
A division bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court comprising of Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Sushil Kukreja, while deciding a Letters Patent Appeal in the case of Rakesh Sharma vs. Indian Oil Corporation and another, held that the burden of proving the employer-employee relationship primarily rested upon the person who asserted its existence, and once the person asserting to be...
A division bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court comprising of Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Sushil Kukreja, while deciding a Letters Patent Appeal in the case of Rakesh Sharma vs. Indian Oil Corporation and another, held that the burden of proving the employer-employee relationship primarily rested upon the person who asserted its existence, and once the person asserting to be an employee of the management gives evidence in their favour, then only the burden will shift on the management to give evidence to counter such claims of the employee.
Background Facts
Rakesh Kumar (Appellant) was engaged by Indian Oil Corporation (Respondent) as Electrical helper. After 4½ years of service, appellant was terminated from service by the respondent without any reason and without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act). Resultantly, the appellant raised the industrial dispute to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, where the award was passed against the appellant.
Aggrieved by the award, the appellant preferred a writ petition, where the learned writ court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the appellant failed to establish the relationship of master and servant between him and the respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed the Letters Patent Appeal.
The appellant contended that the learned writ Court failed to take into consideration the logbook as well as the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESI) Card, issued by the respondent. He further contended that the learned writ Court ignored the evidence as well as oral testimony of the appellant.
On the other hand, it was contended by the Respondents that there was no evidence to show that the appellant was appointed as Electrical Helper by the Corporation. The respondent further contended that appellant was employed by M/s U.K. Electricals Corporation Limited, with whom, the respondent was having an agreement with regard to supply of manpower.
Findings of the Court
The court observed that the burden of proving the employer-employee relationship primarily rested upon the person who asserted its existence. The court relied on the case of Workmen of Nilgiri Co-op. Mkt. Society Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, wherein the Supreme Court held that the person who claims existence of relationship of employer and employee, the burden would be upon him to prove it.
The court further observed that the ESI card was issued in name of the appellant, but it nowhere reflected that it was issued by the respondent. The appellant could not prove his claims even by way of appointment letter or salary slip. The court agreed with the view taken by the learned Single Judge, and held that the appellant failed to establish the relationship of master and servant between him and the respondent. Hence, the court did not interfered with the order passed by the learned writ Court.
With the aforesaid observations, the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed.
Case No. : LPA No.18 of 2021
Case Title: Rakesh Sharma vs. Indian Oil Corporation and another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 14
Counsel for the Appellants : Mr. P.S. Goverdhan, Senior Advocate and Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate
Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate