Burden of proof in employment disputes shifts to the employer once workmen establish their employment. In cases of termination, statutory compliance is critical.

ORDER

Rusia, J. -- 1. Regard being had to the similitude to the controversy involved in the present cases, with the joint request of the parties, all these petitions are finally heard and decided by this common order. Facts are being taken from Writ Petition No.5449 of 2016.

2. Petitioner has filed the present petition against the order dated 27.6.2016 passed by the President, Industrial Court Indore in various civil appeals filed by respondents. Petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacturing of trucks from its unit situated at 89-A, B-90 Industrial Area, Polo Ground, Indore. The petitioner has a license under the Factories Act, 1948.

3. Laghu Udyog Majdoor Union (CITU) along with 17 workmen (hereinafter referred to as “the workmen”) raised an industrial dispute before the Industrial Court Indore under section 31(3) r/w section 61 and 62 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relation Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “MPIR Act”) challenging the termination as illegal and sought written statement with full back wages. According to the workmen, they were appointed by the petitioner company, but after 4 –5 years Kailash Narayan Dubey who was working as a Supervisor was malafidely declared as a contractor and they were shown his employee, with the intention to deny the benefits at par with the regular workmen. After the agitation by the Union, a settlement was arrived on 28.4.2003, but the settlement conditions were not complied with. The workmen approached the Labour Court claiming the benefit of equal pay, allowance, and bonus due to which the management became annoyed and they were terminated from service w.e.f. 1.4.2006 without complying with the provisions of section 25(F) and 25(G) of the Industrial Dispute Act,1947 therefore, the termination is illegal and they are entitled to reinstatement.

4. The petitioner appeared and filed a written statement denying the averments. The petitioner denied the employer-employee relationship with the respondent workmen and submitted that they are the employees of contractor Kailash Narayan Dubey. It was also submitted that the contract came to an end on 31.3.2006 hence they were removed by the contractor, therefore, they are not entitled to reinstatement and back wages.

5. The contractor was also impleaded as a second party before the Labour Court and also filed a written statement in support of the petitioner. The Labour Court recovered the evidence of workmen and the witnesses of management. The contractor also entered into the witness box. After recording the evidence, vide award dated 10.9.2009, the Labour Court dismissed the application under section 31(1) of the Workmen by holding that they were the employees of the contractor, not the petitioner.

6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, workmen preferred civil appeals before the Industrial Court, Indore. Vide order dated 19.3.2010, the learned Industrial Court allowed the appeals concerning workmen and directed the petitioner to reinstate them in service with 50% back wages.

7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No.6491 of 2010. The Writ Court has held that the learned Industrial Court has wrongly shifted the burden on the petitioner/employer to establish that they were not their employee before 2003 and at the time of termination. Vide order dated 16.1.2015, this Court set aside the impugned order of the Industrial Court and remanded the matter back for fr