The Delhi High Court ruled that the responsibility to prove whether an establishment qualifies as an industry under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act lies with the person making that claim. The Court dismissed a petition filed by the Petitioner, who had challenged the Labour Court’s ruling. The Petitioner had sought reinstatement and full back wages following his alleged termination but was unsuccessful, as the Labour Court determined that the Petitioner had failed to establish an employer-employee relationship or demonstrate that M/s. Holistic Child Development India (Respondent) was an “industry” under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act).
Justice Girish Kathpalia, in a judgment delivered by a Single Bench, stated, “The onus to prove that the respondent is an ‘industry’ was on the petitioner but he did not lead any evidence on this aspect. The situs of the burden to prove as to whether the establishment in which the claimant was working is or is not an ‘industry’ is no longer res integra.”
Advocate Sarfaraz Khan represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Babu Malayil appeared for the Respondents. The Petitioner had approached the Labour Court, claiming to have worked as a permanent employee for the Respondent, a charitable trust, since 1995. He alleged his services were terminated and sought regularization and statutory benefits. The Respondent, however, contested these claims, asserting that it was a charitable trust supporting disadvantaged children and did not meet the definition of an “industry” under Section 2(j) of the ID Act. The Respondent further stated that the Petitioner had been employed as a daily wage worker for cleaning duties, paid on a day-to-day basis.
The High Court observed that the Petitioner failed to present any substantial evidence to demonstrate that the Respondent was an industry. Citing the ruling in State of Gujarat vs Pratamsingh Narsinh Parmar (2001), the Court reinforced that when a dispute arises about whether an establishment qualifies as an industry, it is the responsibility of the claimant to provide positive evidence to support this claim. The Court also pointed out that the Petitioner had not specified the position held or provided any appointment letter, nor had he attempted to obtain employment records from the Respondent’s office. The Court further noted the lack of reliable documentary evidence to establish an employer-employee relationship between the parties.
In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Labour Court’s award, stating, “In view of the aforesaid, I am unable to find any infirmity in the impugned award, so the same is upheld and the present petition is dismissed.” As a result, the petition was dismissed.
Cause Title: Satish Kumar v. Holistic Child Development India & Ors.
