Claimant bears burden to prove employer-employee relationship in industrial disputes using control, integration, and multifactor tests; self-serving statements insufficient absent corroboration, especially against principal employer paying contractor.

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 15.01.2025 primarily on the ground that the petitioner failed to discharge burden of proving employer-employee relationship between him and respondent No.2, against whom the case was set up. 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 Kamal Singh S/O Shri Hari Singh, R/O Village Jadour, P.O. Tarsuh, Tehsil Shri Naina Deviji, District Bilaspur, H.P. w.e.f. 01-07-2012 by (i) the Partners, M/S Universal Electric Engineers, Dalhousie Road Pathankot, Punjab (Contractor) and (ii) the Executive Engineer, Changer Area Lift Irrigation Project Division Bassi, District Bilaspur, H.P. (Principal Employer), 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 employers?”

3(ii). The claim set up by the petitioner (Annexure P-2) was that he had worked as Daily Waged Beldar in Changer Area, Medium Lift Irrigation Scheme w.e.f. 01.11.2011 continuously till 30.06.2012. His services were terminated orally on 01.07.2012. Oral termination of petitioner’s services was without assigning any reason. No notice was issued to him. Such termination of petitioner’s services was alleged to be an act of unfair labour practice and in violation of Sections 25B, 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as also the principle of ‘Last come first go’. Petitioner had also asserted that he had put in 240 days in the calendar year before oral termination of his services. Relief prayed for was with respect to petitioner’s reinstatement in service alongwith seniority, continuity of service and other consequential benefits including back wages.

3(iii). Respondent No.1-the Contractor in its reply (Annexure P-3) raised several preliminary objections including there being no relation of employer-employee between petitioner and respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 denied petitioner having continuously worked for 240 days w.e.f. 01.11.2011 to 30.06.2012. However, as per respondent No.1, petitioner was a daily rated casual labourer engaged for operating pumping machines; Respondent No.1’s contract with respondent No.2 ended in May, 2013 and as such, services of the petitioner were not required by respondent No.1; Before completion of contract, one month notice was issued by respondent No.1 to the petitioner and his due payments were also cleared by respondent No.1. Further, according to respondent No.1, after completion of its contract, a new contract qua operation & maintenance of pumping machinery was awarded by respondent No.2 to a different contractor and the labour continued to work under the said new contractor.

3(iv). Respondent No.2 in its reply (Annexure P-4) denied employer-employee relationship with the petitioner. Respondent No.2 also denied terminating petitioner’s services. As per this respondent, Changer Area, Medium Lift Irrigation Project was constructed through various contractors; After its completion, the project was awarded to different contractors for its operation and maintenance, who outsourced the labour; Petitioner was neither engaged nor his services were terminated by respondent No.2; There was no relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and respondent No.2.

3(v). In support of his claim, petitioner furnished his