Employment LawEmployee Bears the Onus to Prove that an Employer-Employee Relationship Existed During Dispute/Termination

The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, in Ishwarbhai Sendhabhai Thakor v. Manager, Ingersoll Rand (India) Ltd. & Others, [Special Civil Application Number 2403 of 2021 decided on 15.10.2024], held that the employment of a workman can be reinstated only with the employer that terminated the employment.

FACTS
Ishwarbhai Sendhabhai Thakor (hereinafter referred to as “the Petitioner”), was employed in Ingersoll Rand (India) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the Respondent No. 1”) as a workman for the period from 2000 to 2005, after which he worked under another entity, namely, J.S. Contractor (hereinafter referred to as “the Respondent No. 2”) from 2005 to 2007.
On 23.01.2007, the Petitioner was terminated from his employment without any formal procedure being followed as mandated under labour laws.
The Petitioner thereafter raised a dispute before the Ld. Labour Court, wherein the Ld. Labour Court partly allowed the reference vide an Order dated 17.08.2020 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”) and reinstated the employment of the Petitioner with Respondent No. 2, and rejected the claim against Respondent No.1.
The Petitioner being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the Impugned Order, filed the present petition.

ISSUES BEFORE THE HIGH COURT
1. Whether the present petition is maintainable before the Hon’ble High Court?
2. Whether the Ld. Labour Court had committed error in passing of the Impugned Order and had failed to consider submissions and facts of the present case?

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
The Petitioner contended that despite producing all the requisite documentary evidences, the Ld. Labour Court had erred in holding that the Petitioner and Respondent No.1 had no employer-employee relationship.
It was argued that the Ld. Labour Court had given too much weightage to the admission of Respondent No. 2 that the Petitioner was employed with Respondent No. 2, and was working on contractual basis with Respondent No. 1.
The Petitioner further submitted that the employment of the Petitioner should have been reinstated with Respondent No.1 instead of Respondent No.2.
On the other hand, the Respondent No.1 contended that the Petitioner failed to provide even single documentary evidence before the Ld. Labour Court, showing that till the termination of the employment, the Petitioner was working with the Respondent No. 1.
It was submitted that the cross examination as well as other documentary evidences clearly portrayed that the provident fund for the period of 2005-2007 was deducted by the Respondent No. 2 and not Respondent No. 1.
Thus, the Respondent No. 1 finally argued that the Ld. Labour Court has not committed any error, have considered all the evidences placed on record, and passed an appropriate order.

DECISIONS AND FINDINGS
The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, referred to the Impugned Order passed by the Ld. Labour Court and the cross examination of the Petitioner recorded by the Ld. Labour Court.
The High Court observed that the Petitioner had directly admitted in the cross examination itself, that the Petitioner was employed with Respondent No. 2 during the period of dispute. It was also observed that the Ld. Labour Court had passed a well-reasoned and detailed Impugned Order, only after considering all the documentary evidences placed on record, however, on the contrary, the Petitioner did not resume work with Respondent No. 1 even after the employment was reinstated vide the Impugned Order.
Thus, the High Court dismissed the Petition, leaving it open for the Petitioner to join Respondent No. 2 as held by the Ld. Labour Court in the Impugned Order.
The relevant para is reproduced hereinbelow:
“8. Learned labour court after assigning detailed reasons has come to the conclusion that though work was offered by respondent No.2 but he did not resume, however, learned labour court has awarded the reinstatement against respondent No.2 after considering the admission made by the present petitioner during cross examination.
9. This Court does not find any illegality in the facts and reasons recorded by the learned labour court while passing the impugned award. Hence the present petition does not require to be entertained.
10. Resultantly this petition is dismissed.
11. It is open for the petitioner to join with the respondent No.2 as per the directions issued by the learned labour court.”

AMLEGALS REMARKS
The High Court observed that the reinstatement of the employment can be done with only the employer who has terminated the employee and not with a former employer. It was also held that the onus of proving unlawful termination as well as employment was on the claimant or the employee, and not on the employer.
Thus, in circumstances, where the Ld. Labour Court has examined all evidences and passed a reasoned order, it cannot be held to be illegal or against the provisions of law.

The present case was handled by AMLEGALS for the Respondent No.1.

-Team AMLEGALS

For any query or feedback, please feel free to get in touch with rohit.lalwani@amlegals.com or himanshi.patwa@amlegals.com