Filing Of Affidavits Or Self-Serving Documents Insufficient To Prove Employer-Employee Relationship: MP HC

Background

Ashok Singh Tomar stated that he worked as a Security Guard in the Forest Range at Soi Beat. He alleged that he was orally terminated by the respondent, without following due process as laid in Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“ID Act”). Consequently, he filed a complaint with the labour court, asking for reinstatement and back wages. Tomar argued that he had already completed 240 days of continuous service in the previous year. He submitted that this protected him from termination under Section 25(F). The Labour Court, however, dismissed his claim. It held that the evidence presented by Tomar was not enough to establish an employer-employee relationship.

Arguments

The petitioner argued that the Labour Court should have recognised the employer-employee relationship between the parties. He submitted an identity card and a witness statement to support his claim. Tomar contended that he had completed over 240 days of continuous employment and thus was protected against retrenchment under the ID Act. He further argued that the respondents had failed to produce employment records as directed by the court; therefore, an adverse inference must be drawn against them.

On the other hand, respondents contended that Tomar was engaged by the Forest Security Society, which is a private entity constituted for forest conservation. He was not engaged by the Forest Department. They argued that the Society had full control over its labor and finances, negating any direct employer-employee relationship with the Forest Department. They further submitted that Tomar did not produce substantive evidence of his employment, like salary slips or formal appointment records – thereby negating his claims.

Court's Reasoning

The court first observed that Tomar failed to provide any credible evidence of his employment. It noted that the identity card submitted lacked official signatures or outward numbers linking it to the Forest Department. The court also declared the testimonies by Tomar's witnesses to be unreliable, particularly as the available records contradicted his claims of co-employment.

Further, relying on Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3) SCC 25) and Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004 (8) SCC 195), the court reiterated that the burden of proving continuous service for 240 days was on the petitioner. It noted that filing an affidavit or self-serving documents is insufficient to discharge this burden.

The court also noted that the Forest Security Society was established under a government resolution for forest conservation and operated independently. It also observed that the testimony of the Society representatives completely contradicted Tomar's claims of employment.

On the issue of drawing an adverse inference, the court explained that while respondents had not produced any records, the initial burden of proving the employment was on the petitioner. Therefore, without that being fulfilled, no adverse inference could be drawn by the court.

Lastly, the court emphasized that procedural lapses, such as oral termination, were irrelevant in the absence of proof of employment. Since Tomar could not demonstrate an employer-employee relationship, there was no question of violating Section 25(F) of the ID Act. Thus, the High Court upheld the Labour Court's decision. It held that the petitioner failed to substantiate his employment claims. The petition was therefore dismissed.

Decided on: 05-12-2024

Case No.: W.P. 5844 of 2018 | Ashok Singh Tomar v. The Forest Rang Officer and Others

Counsel For the Petitioner: Shri Girija Shankar Sharma

Counsel For the Respondents: Shri Nitin Goyal, Panel Lawyer

Click Here To Read/Download The Order