The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that an adverse inference cannot be drawn against an employer when the employee himself cannot primarily establish that he was in employment.
The Court dismissed a Petition filed by the Petitioner challenging the Labour Court’s decision, which rejected his claim of being an employee of the Forest Department (Respondent). The Court held that the Petitioner failed to prove the fact of his employment with the Respondent, and no violation of Section 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act) could be established.
A Single Bench of Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke held, “Labour Court has observed that though even upon directions issued to the department the record was not submitted, but when the petitioner himself could not primarily establish that he was in employment of the respondent no.1 and 2 no adverse inference can be drawn against the department as the initial burden of proving the facts could not be discharged by the petitioner which could have led the respondent no.1 and 2 to disprove the factum of his employment…This Court is in full confirmity with the findings arrived at by the learned Labour Court.”
Also Read – Bata Group Elevates Pooja Marwah as Global Head of Talent Management
Advocate Girija Shankar Sharma represented the Petitioner, while Panel Lawyer Nitin Goyal appeared for the Respondents.
The Petitioner claimed that he was employed as a Security Guard/Labourer and continuously worked in the Soi Beat. He alleged that the beat guard terminated his services orally without notice or an opportunity to be heard, violating the provisions of Section 25(f) of the ID Act.
The Petitioner contended that he had worked for more than 240 days and that some junior daily wage workers had been reinstated, but his services were terminated arbitrarily. Aggrieved by the termination, the Petitioner sought reinstatement with back wages through the Labour Court, which dismissed the reference after concluding that the Petitioner had failed to prove his employment.
The Respondent argued that the Petitioner was never an employee of the Forest Department but was engaged through the Forest Security Society, a private entity established under the resolution of the State Government.
The High Court held that it was in full conformity with the findings arrived at by the Labour Court.
The Bench referred to the decision in R.M. Yellatti vs The Asst. Executive Engineer (2005) to underline that mere affidavits or self-serving statements by a workman cannot be considered sufficient evidence of employment. “Drawing of adverse inference ultimately would depend thereafter on facts of each case. The above decisions however make it clear that mere affidavits or self-serving statements made by the claimant/workman will not suffice in the matter of discharge of the burden placed by law on the workman to prove that he had worked for 240 days in a given year,” it clarified.
The Court noted that except for an identity card, no other documentary evidence was produced by the Petitioner which could demonstrate that he had ever worked with the Respondent department and even on the said identity card there was no mention of any outward number nor was there any signature of any officers of the department.
Consequently, the Court held, “Thus, when the factum of employment of the petitioner with respondent no.1 and 2 or even respondent no.3 could not be established, therefore, no question arose for any violation of provision of Section 25(f) of the I.D. Act and this aspect has also rightly been considered by the learned Labour Court.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: Ashok Singh Tomar v. The Forest Rang Officer & Ors.
Source: verdictum
Stay connected with us on social media platforms for instant updates click here to join our LinkedIn, Twitter & Facebook
