The claimant must prove the existence of an employer-employee relationship to succeed in disputes under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

JUDGMENT :

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.

Reference of the petitioner moved under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been decided against him by the learned Presiding Judge, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala on 31.12.2024 primarily on the ground that the petitioner failed to discharge burden of proving employer-employee relationship between him and the respondent. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has laid challenge to the aforesaid award in this writ petition.

2. Heard and considered the case file.

3. The case:-

3(i). Following reference was sent by the Appropriate Government for adjudication by the learned Labour Court:-

“Whether termination of services of Shri Gurbachan Singh S/o Shri Chuhara Ram, R/o V.P.O Bassi, Tehsil Shri Naina Deviji, District Bilaspur,
H.P. w.e.f. 01-07-2012 (as alleged by workman) by the Executive Engineer, Changer Area Lift Irrigation Project Division Bassi, District Bilaspur, H.P., without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is legal and justified? If not, what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above worker is entitled to from the above employer?”

3(ii). The claim set up by the petitioner (Annexure P- 2) was that on the basis of result of an interview process conducted by the respondent on 01.05.2011 he was employed by the respondent as Daily Waged Helper on 01.05.2011 in Changer Area Medium Lift Irrigation Project, Division Bassi, District Bilaspur, H.P. He continued to work till 30.06.2012. With effect from 01.07.2012, the respondent awarded entire work to contractor. Consequently, services of the petitioner alongwith 12 other workers were terminated. It was the case set up by the petitioner that his daily waged services were terminated under a verbal order of the respondent on 01.07.2012 without any notice. That before awarding work to the contractor, notice was not even issued to the petitioner. Petitioner alleged concealment of his muster roll, attendance register and demand register by the respondent. According to the petitioner, despite making repeated requests, he was not reinstated in service. Petitioner asserted violation of provisions of Sections 25- F(a), 25-F(b), 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as also the principle of ‘Last come first go’. Petitioner prayed for reinstatement in service alongwith seniority, continuity of service and other consequential benefits including back wages.

3(iii). Respondent in its reply (Annexure P-3) raised several preliminary objections including there being no relation of employer-employee between petitioner and respondent. Respondent denied petitioner having worked under it upto 30.06.2012 and awarding the work to contractor on 01.07.2012. Respondent denied terminating services of the petitioner alongwith 12 workers. According to the respondent, Changer Area Medium Lift Irrigation Project was constructed through different contractors. Upon completion of the project, the same was again awarded to several contractors for purpose of operation and maintenance of project by outsourcing labour; Respondent neither engaged nor terminated services of the petitioner. There was no relationship of employer and employee between them.

3(iv). In support of his claim, petitioner furnished his affidavit, Ext. PW1/A (Annexure P-5) reiterating the facts alleged in the claim petition. Petitioner also produced on record list of workers employed in the project and termed it as seniority list maintained by the respondent. Respondent examined one Shri S.K. Patial, Executive Engineer, Changer Area Medium Lift Irrigation Project. The said witness besides his affidavit Ex. RW1/A (Annexure P- 6) also placed on record several documents. Learned Labour Court after considering the entire case, dismissed the claim petition.

4. Cons