Burden Of Establishing 'Industry' Status In Employment Dispute On Petitioner: Delhi HC
Pranav Kumar
14 Dec 2024 9:23 AM IST
Delhi High Court: A single judge bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia upheld a Labour Court's award that rejected a worker's claims for reinstatement. It held that the worker failed to prove that Holistic Child Development India (HCDI) qualified as an “industry” within the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The court also found no evidence that established an employer-employee relationship between the parties. It noted that the petitioner had only been engaged as a casual, daily-wage worker for cleaning tasks.
Background
Satish Kumar filed a claim in the Labour Court against HCDI stating illegal termination of his employment. He claimed to have served as a full-time employee from March 29, 1995, with a salary of Rs. 3,120 per month. He submitted that his termination was illegal and based on an altercation over regularisation. He pressed for reinstatement with back wages.
The respondent, HCDI, is a registered public charitable trust. It denied the allegations, and argued that it is not even an “industry” under the Industrial Disputes Act. It further stated that Kumar was not employed permanently. He was being engaged to clean in day-wage basis casually. The respondent explained that his services were terminated because he was threatening in nature, and failed to complete the mandatory 240 days of service in a calendar year. The Labour Court framed the issues as such: first, whether HCDI was an “industry”; second, whether any employer-employee relationship existed, and third, whether the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement and back wages. It finally ruled against Kumar, finding no evidence to establish HCDI as an “industry” or prove an employer-employee relationship. Aggrieved, Kumar filed a writ petition.
Arguments
Kumar submitted that he had worked for HCDI as a full-time employee for over a decade. He argued that the mere absence of an appointment letter did not negate his otherwise regular employment. Kumar submitted that his work was permanent in nature and not casual. He argued that HCDI's characterization of him as a daily-wager was a mere front to deny him benefits of regularization and gratuity. Additionally, Kumar contended that the Labour Court had overlooked significant evidence. This included payment vouchers submitted by him, which he claimed demonstrated his continuous service.
HCDI submitted that it is a charitable institution and therefore doesn't engage in industrial activities. It argued that the burden of proving otherwise was on the petitioner – which, he had failed to discharge. It also argued that Kumar was under no formal employment, his cleaning work was sporadic and was compensated on a daily basis. Finally, HCDI highlighted the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226, emphasizing that the Labour Court's findings did not warrant interference.
Court's Reasoning
The court first questioned whether HCDI could be considered an “industry” under the Industrial Disputes Act. It noted that HCDI is a charitable trust, aiming at providing help to poor and orphaned children. The court emphasized that the burden of proving otherwise rested on Kumar, but no evidence shown to that end. The court relied on State of Gujarat v. Pratamsingh Narsinh Parmar, (2001) 9 SCC 713, which clarified that the onus lies on the claimant to establish the industrial nature of the respondent's activities.
Secondly, the court examined the existence of an employer-employee relationship. It observed that Kumar had failed to specify the nature of his appointment or produce documentary evidence proving a regular employment arrangement. It noted that payment vouchers submitted by Kumar revealed that he was paid on a day-to-day basis for cleaning work, indicating a casual engagement. The court found no evidence of a permanent or continuous employment arrangement.
Lastly, the court reminded of the limited role of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. While relying on Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah (1955 SCC OnLine SC 21), it noted that a writ court cannot become an appellate court. The jurisdiction of the High Court is only for correction of errors of procedure or to address a grievance of substantial injustice. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, and upheld the Labour Court's award.
Decided on: November 29, 2024
Case No.: W.P.(C) 5664/2010
Case Name: Satish Kumar v. Holistic Child Development India and Others
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Sarfaraz Khan
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Babu Malayil
