The court affirmed that the burden of proof regarding employment status lies with the employer, and evidence presented by workmen established their continuous employment, justifying compensation awards.

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Shakdher, J.:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface: -

1. The captioned writ petitions have been filed by an entity going by the name Rama Tent House [in short "RTH"]. These writ petitions are directed against five separate awards of even date i.e. 30.04.2019 [hereafter referred to as "the impugned awards"]. Via the impugned awards, Labour Court South-West District, Dwarka Courts: New Delhi [in short "the Labour Court"] has awarded monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement, in service, to each of the respondents/workmen [hereafter collectively referred to as "workmen"] in the writ petitions.

2. All the five workmen have been granted a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- with a rider that the same should be paid within 30 days from the date of publication of the award and, in case of failure to comply with the direction for payment of compensation, the workmen would be entitled to recover the same from RTH @ 8% per annum.

3. The RTH, being aggrieved with the impugned awards, preferred the captioned petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Submissions advanced on behalf of RTH: -

4. Mr. V.K. Garg, Senior Advocate, instructed by Mr. Vishnu Sharma, Advocate, assailed the impugned awards, on the following grounds.

i. There was no employer-employee relationship between RTH and the workmen. No evidence qua the same was placed on record by the workmen.

ii. The workmen had failed to discharge the burden of proof that they were in continuous service for twelve months as required under Section 25B read with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [in short "the I.D. Act"].

iii. The Labour Court shifted the onus on RTH concerning the existence of an employer-employee relationship and the fact that the workmen had been engaged by RTH for a continuous period of 240 days.

iv. The Labour Court held in favour of the workmen qua the aforesaid aspects by drawing an adverse inference against RTH. Importantly, the workmen had not filed any application for the production of documents and, therefore, the Labour Court could not have drawn an adverse inference against RTH.

v. The workmen had failed to discharge the burden of proof that they were not gainfully employed. In this context, it was stressed that the workmen had not produced their savings bank passbook or their Aadhar Card.

vi. In sum, the submission was that the impugned awards were ex facie unsustainable in law.

Background facts: -

5. To adjudicate upon the aforesaid contentions advanced by Mr. Garg, it would be necessary to note the following broad facts, concerning the instant cases.

5.1. The workmen claim that they were employed with RTH.

5.2. The dates of their employment, though different, are in close proximity; the details of which are tabulated below. However, four out of the five workmen were retrenched from service on the same date i.e. 24.09.2012 while the fifth workmen i.e. respondent in W.P. (C.) 826/2021 was retrenched on 12.03.2012.

5.3. At the time of retrenchment from service, the workmen were paid a remuneration of Rs. 5,700/- per month. The workmen being aggrieved had letters issued to RTH through their Union. Four out of the five workmen had these communications sent via letters dated 24.09.2012 while the fifth workmen [i.e. respondent in W.P. (C.) 826/2021] whose services were terminated earlier, as indicated above, had a communication sent, through the Union, via letter dated 26.06.2012.

5.4. Since the intercession made by the Union, on behalf of the workmen, had no impact, four out of the five workmen approached the Labour Cou