The court affirmed the presumption of employment due to the lack of contrary evidence by the management, emphasizing the burden of proof lies with the party denying employment under the Industrial Disputes Act.

JUDGMENT

[WP(C) Nos.4559/2019, 8228/2019]

This order of mine shall dispose of two writ petitions W.P.(C) No.4559 of 2019 titled as R.Murukan v. N.O Pratheesh and another and W.P.(C) No.8228 of 2019 titled as Pratheesh N.O v. Murukan and Another.

2. In both the writ petitions, challenge has been laid to the labour court award dated 5.4.2018 whereby the claim for denial of the employment with effect from September 2008 by the management has been accepted in part, ordering reinstatement but by denying back wages. It is in that background the management has challenged the other part of the award ordering the reinstatement whereas the workman with regard to denial of reinstatement.

3. The facts in brief are that the petitioner is stated to have being an employee of a management known as Mary Matha College of Engineering and Technology, Paliyodu, Neyyattinkara and allegedly appointed as clerical staff in the said college on 20.7.2002, Ext.P1. The management had also executed a bond in favour of the workman for deposit of Rs.1,50,000/- to be utilized by the management as working capital of the institution. The workman accepted the terms and conditions; continued to work and became permanent employee. Even an amount was deducted from the salary for GPF and LIC. From 2016 onwards the management started paying the salary to the workman through bank, Vellarada Branch. Petitioner opened an account bearing No.11313 and as per the Bank statement the amount has been deposited. Even a salary certificate was issued by the competent authority. In the year 2008, ie., with effect from 5.6.2008, there had been a change in the management known as 'PRS College of Engineering and Technology; when the aforementioned management taken over the charge all the employees working with them continued except there were some dispute with 16 employees. Petitioner continued to draw the salary but from 10.9.2008 denied the employment. It is in that background raised the dispute before the labour officer where the management did not appear and the matter was referred to the labour court for adjudication.

4. Respondents in response to the aforementioned claim petition denied the employment of the petitioner with the erstwhile management and as well as their management except that there was a dispute with 16 employees and a settlement was arrived at before the conciliation officer on 24.3.2009 and all the employees were taken into job as evident from the appointment letters. The previous management did not hand over the attendance registers and therefore the same could not be produced. There was no relationship of the employer and employee. Both the parties in support of the respective claims produced on record the documents as well as the statements. The workman examined as WW1 and brought on record documents Exts.W1 to W9 whereas the management examined MW1 and documents M1 and M2 ie., the settlement arrived between 16 employees.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the management submitted that labour court has erred in treating the workman as employee of the subsequent management as no documentary evidence has been placed on record regarding the employment or deposit of Rs.1,50,000/- as per the conditions of the bond. The salary certificate was also a forged document. The entire evidence was required to be looked into but the contents of cross examination in isolation cannot be a determining factor for answering the reference partly in favour of the workman. All the employees of the previous management was taken over except the dispute with 16 workers, which were resolved before the settlement officer and were absorbed in the department as evident from the appointment letters attached. The workman is not also entitled to rei