The High Court sets aside the reinstatement of Ambrish Kumar, citing lack of employer-employee relationship evidence.
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has overturned the Labour Court's decision to reinstate Ambrish Kumar, a former Driveway Sales Man at Indraprastha Gas Limited (IGL), with full back wages and benefits. The High Court, presided over by Justice Renu Bhatnagar, found that the Labour Court had erred in determining an employer-employee relationship between Kumar and IGL.
The case revolves around Kumar's employment status, with IGL maintaining that Kumar was employed by M/S Pratap Enterprises, a contractor, not IGL directly. IGL had argued that Kumar was under the supervision of the contractor and received his salary and statutory benefits from them.
Justice Bhatnagar emphasized that the burden of proof for establishing an employer-employee relationship lies with the claimant. The High Court found that Kumar had failed to present conclusive evidence such as appointment letters, salary slips, or records of statutory deductions like Provident Fund or Employee State Insurance, which are essential to establish such a relationship.
The High Court also criticized the Labour Court for basing its decision on insufficient evidence, such as identity cards and salary sheets, which did not conclusively prove Kumar's employment with IGL. Furthermore, the Labour Court was deemed to have exceeded its jurisdiction by addressing issues beyond the pleadings, particularly the nature of the contract between IGL and the contractor.
Additionally, the Delhi High Court referred to a previous judgment in the case of Vinay Sharma v. Indraprastha Gas Ltd., which established that workers like Kumar were contract labour and not direct employees of IGL. This precedent was pivotal in the High Court's decision to overturn the Labour Court's award.
However, the court did clarify that wages received by Kumar under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, which are treated as compensation, are not subject to return.
The judgment underscores the necessity of clear and convincing evidence when asserting an employer-employee relationship in industrial disputes, particularly involving contract labour. This ruling may have implications for similar cases, particularly those involving contractual engagements and labour rights.
Bottom Line:
Industrial Disputes Act - Employer-employee relationship - The initial burden of proving the existence of such a relationship lies upon the person asserting it.
Statutory provision(s): Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Sections 2(oo), 25F, 17B
M/s Indraprastha Gas Limited v. Ambrish Kumar, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2819354
