Case title:
Mr. Rakesh Sharma V Indian Oil Corporation and another.
Date of Order:
MARCH 23, 2024;
Bench:
Hon’ble Mr. Tarlok Singh Chauhan (Judge); Sushil Kukreja (Judge).
Parties: Appellant: Mr. Mr. Rakesh Sharma.
Respondents: Indian Oil Corporation and another
Judge:
Subject: The case revolves around the filed Letters Patent Appeal (LPA), which challenged his termination from the Indian Oil Corporation. The appellant alleged that the corporation terminated his services without any information. When the court asked them to submit the related documents to prove his employment in the management, he failed to do so. The failure of submission did not prove the Employer-Employee relationship. Hence, without any cogent proof, the court upheld the impugned order of 21.8.2019.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Section 25-F: Deals with the conditions that an employer must satisfy before retrenching an employee
INDIAN CONSTITUTION:
Article 226: Gives the High Court the power to entertain writs.
OVERVIEW(Brief Facts)
- In this case the main basis laid around the submission of LPA (Letters Patent Appeal) preferred by the appellant via a writ petition against an impugned order. (where his writ petition was dismissed).
- As per the stated facts, the aggrieved was employed by the Indian Oil Corporation (In short Corporation) as an electrical helper in the year 1996 at an LPG bottling plant.
- After rendering continuous services for 4.5 years there, he was evicted from his post(in the year 2000) without any reason and compliance with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
- Resultantly, as the industrial dispute was raised, the matter was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Chandigarh.
- The references (which were asked by the plaintiff) were answered against the appellant by the tribunal in 2013.
- Aggrieved by this a writ petition was filed, but the writ was dismissed eventually after hearing only one of the parties.
- The reason for the dismissal was that the appellant was not able to establish the master-servant relationship.
- Against this impugned order, the appellant preferred the instant appeal against the aforesaid.
ISSUES RAISED
The core issues that were raised in this case were related to:
- Was termination from the employment without any reason/notice just?
- Was there an Employee-Employer(master-servant) relationship?
- To what extent are the allegations made, true?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- The appellant counsel contended that the order passed from the writ court earlier had many irregularities as it failed to even consider the logbook as well as the ESI card (issued by Employees State Insurance Corporation).
- It was further contended that the court completely ignored the un-rebutted evidence along with the oral testimony of the appellant.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- The arguments made by the respondents were that the appellant lacked evidence that he was appointed as an electrical helper by the corporation.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- After hearing the counsels from both sides, it was stated that the burden of proving the existence of a master-servant is not entirely upon the person who asserts its existence.
- It was stated that in the case of a master-servant relationship, if the employee asserts, he was an employee of the management, whereas, the management denies the same, the employee has to give positive evidence to prove the same and get discharged from the initial burden. So to counter this, the management has to do the same in its counterclaims.
- Although, in this case after referring to one of the previous cases, the court held that the onus to prove the existence of a relationship was on the appellant.
- It was acknowledged that there was no concrete evidence placed by the appellant to prove his employment there as he did not produce any documents related to his appointment, salary slips, etc.
- It was mentioned that the employee was not under the Corporation and it was another company(M/s U.K. Electricals Corporation Limited) that had an agreement with the company that hired the appellant.
- The court stated that the emphasis that was made on the ESI card was not enough, as the produced documents(log book) were not in original format, but were a mere photocopy of the original document.
- Also, the ESI card had the name of the appellant but did not have the name of the employer. Only a code number was present on the card which cannot be a basis to prove that he was an employee at the corporation.
- It was mentioned that just based on an ESI card, nothing can be proven. Apart from the card the appellant did not have any cogent proof of anything about his employment, not even the proof of the salary that was paid to him.
- Hence, the bench agreed to the impugned order of 21.08.2019.
- It was held, that there was no merit in the instant appeal and accordingly it was dismissed.
CONCLUSION
In this case, the main issue is around the LPA filed via a writ petition. It deals with the claim of wrongful termination of the services of the appellant from the Indian Oil Corporation. Despite the allegations of the appellant against the corporation, there was no substantial proof provided by the appellant which could have established a relationship of master-servant. Hence, the writ was dismissed.
