Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 30548
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
MR ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE, J
DIGICAPTIONS INDIA PVT., LTD. – Appellant
Versus
SRI A.G. BASAVARAJU – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.60015 OF 2014
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SRI KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHY P
For the Respondents: SRI P.KANTHARAJU, SMT. R.SAROJINI MUTHANNA
The employer-employee relationship is established through evidence presented, necessitating reinstatement of the workman with modified backwages.
Headnote:(A) Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - Writ petition challenging the Labour Court’s award - The Labour Court held that the petitioner is the employer of the 1st respondent, reinstating him with consequential benefits and backwages from the date of denial of employment. (Paras 1, 46, 47)
(B) Employment Law - Burden of proof of employer-employee relationship lies on petitioner - The Labour Court found that the workman had been employed by petitioner since 2002 based on documentary evidence including letters of appreciation. (Paras 17, 18, 21, 28)
Facts of the case:
The workman joined the petitioner’s establishment on 19.08.2002 but was denied employment without inquiry from 10.01.2012. The dispute led to the Labour Court proceedings, where the Labour Court concluded in favor of the workman.
Findings of Court:
The employment relationship was established and the court upheld the Labour Court’s decision on reinstatement with modified backwages.
Issues: The primary issues included the nature of employment and whether the Labour Court’s findings on employer-employee relationship were justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Labour Court's findings were justified based on the letters of appreciation and other documents, leading to the conclusion that the workman was employed by the petitioner despite disputes over the specifics of employment arrangements.
Result: The Writ petition is allowed in part; the award regarding full backwages is reduced to 50%.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. labour court's ruling on employment status (Para 1 , 4 , 6 , 8) |
| 2. disputes over employment contracts and implications (Para 9 , 11 , 21 , 22 , 33) |
| 3. court's modification of backwages and decision on reinstatement (Para 39 , 46 , 47) |
CAV ORDER
In terms of the impugned award dated 28.10.2014 in I.D.No.24/2013, the Labour Court, Bengaluru has answered the reference in the affirmative holding that writ petitioner is the employer of 1strespondent - Sri A.G.Basavaraju. The Labour Court further held that the refusal of employment by the petitioner with effect from 10.01.2012 is unjustified and directed reinstatement of the workman with effect from 10.01.2012 with all consequential benefits including continuity of service and backwages. Hence, the employer is the petitioner before this Court.
2. Respondent No.2 - M/s Facilities Coordinators was 2nd respondent among the Second Party before the Labour Court. Petitioner contends that Sri A.G.Basavaraju was the employee of M/s Facilities Coordinators, the Labour Contractor.
3. M/s Facilities Coordinators/2nd respondent has disputed the petitioner’s contention and has supported Sri A.G.Basavaraju's claim that he is the employee under the petitioner.
4. The facts narrated in the claim petition before the Labour Court can be summarised as under:
- The workman joined the petitioner’s Establishment on 19.08.2002 as a security officer. Workman’s services were appreciated and the officers-in-charge of the petitioner - Establishment have issued certificates appreciating his efficiency and competency. On 10.01.2012, the workman was denied employment without holding any inquiry and following the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 . Thus, the workman raised the industrial dispute. The appropriate Government framed the points for reference and referred the matter to the Labour Court for adjudication. The points for reference read as under:
5. The parties appeared before the Labour Court and the petitioner and respondent No.2 of this petition have taken a stand as already noted above wherein the petitioner contends that 1st respondent is the workman under 2nd respondent; respondent No.2 contends that 1st respondent is the workman under the petitioner.
6. Noticing the pleadings, the Labour Court framed two additional issues which read as under:
ADDITIONAL ISSUES
1. Whether the second party No.1 - Management proves that first party was the employee of second party No.2 so he has to seek any relief from second party No.2 only, reference against second party No.1 is not maintainable?
2. Whether the second party No.1 proves that there exists no relationship of employer and employee between second party No.1 and first party workman?
7. The parties led evidence in support of their case.
8. The Labour Court on appreciation of evidence has concluded that the present writ petitioner is the employer of present 1st respondent. The Labour Court also concluded that denial of work is unjustified and passed the award for reinstatement with full backwages and consequential benefits.
9. Learned Senior counsel Sri D.R.Ravishankar appearing for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court committed a grave error in not noticing the implication of the statutory documents relating to Employees Provident Fund contribution made by 2nd respondent. It is also his contention that Exs.M.1 and M.2, the labour contracts/agreements for outsourcing the manpower and document at Ex.M.8, the quotation reveal that 2nd respondent supplied the manpower for security services and 1st respondent was employed under 2nd respondent - the Labour Contractor and the document at Ex.M.20 - the letter dated 25.03.2024 issued by the Employees Provident Fund Organization revealed that the workman was employed by 2nd respondent. It is also urged that the documents relied on by the Labour Court viz., the letters of appreciation said to have been issued by the employee’s of the petitioner - Establishmen
