Once a worker establishes an employer-employee relationship through credible documentation, the burden of proof shifts to the management to disprove such status. Without evidence of voluntary abandonment or statutory compliance in retrenchment, the management's failure to rebut the claim justifies a finding of illegal termination.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners, assailing the award dated 19.03.2018 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-XIX, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, in LIR No. 7325/2016, whereby the respondent no.2/workman has been held to be entitled to reinstatement along with full back wages.

2. Briefly stated, the workman preferred a claim application, claiming that he had been employed as a driver with the petitioners since June, 2003 and that his last drawn wages were Rs.16,000/- per month. He claimed that despite rendering continuous service, he was denied statutory benefits and his services were illegally terminated on 23.07.2015 without notice, chargesheet, enquiry, or compliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act(hereinafter referred to as the ‘ID Act’). The workman further claimed that he had issued a demand notice dated 17.08.2015 seeking reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages, but petitioner no.2/management failed to respond. Thereafter, conciliation proceedings were initiated, however, as no settlement could be arrived at, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned award is wholly erroneous and without jurisdiction, as the Labour Court failed to appreciate that no employer-employee relationship existed. It is contended that the workman had voluntarily left the services on 20.07.2015 after receiving full and final settlement of his dues.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the workman submits that the impugned award is well-reasoned. It is contended that the respondent had been working with the petitioners as a driver and his services were terminated illegally and arbitrarily. It is further submitted that the petitioner management failed to produce any evidence before the Labour Court to substantiate its defence that the respondent had voluntarily left the job or that there was no employer-employee relationship.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. It is noted that the workman established the existence of an employer-employee relationship by producing on record his identity card and salary certificate issued by the management. These documents prima facie support the workman’s claim that he was employed under the management. During his cross-examination, the workman denied the suggestions put by the management that he had voluntarily left the job, that his services had not been terminated by the management, that he had received full and final dues towards salary, or that the identity card had merely been issued to facilitate parking of the vehicle during exhibitions. Accordingly, the workman had discharged the initial burden cast upon him to establish the relationship of employment.

7. Thereafter, the burden shifted upon the management to rebut the evidence produced by the workman. However, the management failed to produce any evidence to support its plea that the workman was merely the personal driver of petitioner no.1, who was the Chairperson of petitioner no.2/management, and not an employee of petitioner no.2/management. Significantly, petitioner no.1 herself did not step into the witness box to support the defence taken. The Labour Court, therefore, drew an adverse inference against the management and held that its defence remained unproved.

8. The legal position regarding determination of an employer-employee r