Onus To Prove Whether Establishment Is An Industry Is On The Person Claiming The Same To Be Industry: Delhi HC
|The Delhi High Court held that the person claiming an establishment is an industry under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act has the onus to prove whether the said establishment is an industry or not.
The Court dismissed a petition filed by the Petitioner, who challenged the Labour Court's Order. The Petitioner had sought reinstatement after his alleged ‘termination’ with full back wages, but the Labour Court rejected his claims, holding that he failed to establish the existence of an employer-employee relationship or that the M/s. Holistic Child Development India (Respondent) qualified as an “industry” under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act).
A Single Bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia held that “The onus to prove that the respondent is “industry” was on the petitioner but he did not lead any evidence on this aspect. The situs of the burden to prove as to whether the establishment in which the claimant was working is or is not an “industry” is no longer res integra.”
Advocate Sarfaraz Khan appeared for the Petitioner, while Advocate Babu Malayil represented the Respondents.
The Petitioner had approached the Labour Court through a statement of claim alleging that he had been working as a permanent employee with the Respondent, a charitable trust, since 1995. He claimed that his services were terminated, after which he demanded regularisation and statutory benefits.
The Respondent, in its written statement, denied these claims, asserting that it was a public charitable trust, engaged in supporting poor, orphaned, and destitute children, and did not qualify as an “industry” under Section 2(j) of the ID Act. The Respondent also contended that the Petitioner had been engaged as a daily wager for cleaning and dusting work and was paid on a day-to-day basis.
The High Court noted that the Petitioner did not lead any positive evidence to show that the Respondent constituted an industry.
The Bench referred to the decision in State of Gujarat vs Pratamsingh Narsinh Parmar (2001), wherein the Apex Court held that if a dispute arises as to whether a particular establishment or part thereof wherein an appointment had been made is or is not industry, it would be for the person concerned who claims the same to be industry, to give positive facts for coming to conclusion that it was industry.
“Coming to the other aspect, viz, the relationship of employer and employee between the respondent and the petitioner, it would be significant to note that in his Statement of Claim, the petitioner did not specify the post on which he was appointed or was employed. Admittedly, the petitioner was never issued any appointment letter by the respondent and no steps were taken by the petitioner to summon employment records from office of the respondent…In other words, there is no reliable documentary evidence to establish the relationship of employer and employee between the parties,” the Court remarked.
Consequently, the Court held, “In view of the aforesaid, I am unable to find any infirmity in the impugned award, so the same is upheld and the present petition is dismissed.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: Satish Kumar v. Holistic Child Development India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:9259)