The Delhi High Court has set aside a Labour Court award directing the reinstatement of a workman against Indraprastha Gas Limited (IGL), holding that the workman failed to establish the foundational fact of an employer-employee relationship with the company. The Court reiterated that the burden of proving such a relationship lies on the workman and cannot be shifted merely because the employer’s defence is rejected.
Justice Shail Jainwas hearing a writ petition filed by IGL challenging a 2011 Labour Court award that had directed reinstatement of the employee with continuity of service, compensation of ₹45,000, but without back wages. The Labour Court had held that the respondent’s termination was illegal after concluding that he was an employee of IGL and had completed more than 240 days of continuous service.
Also Read Asian Games 2026: Supreme Court Defers Hearing on Challenge to India’s Dressage Team Selection
Before the High Court, IGL contended that the respondent was engaged through an independent contractor and not directly employed by the company. It argued that the workman had produced no appointment letter, salary slips, provident fund or ESI records, or any other documentary evidence establishing a direct employer-employee relationship.
The High Court observed that while the Labour Court was justified in rejecting IGL’s contractor defence, such rejection could not by itself establish that the respondent was a direct employee of the company. The Court held that the Labour Court had erroneously treated the failure of the management’s defence as proof of the workman’s case, thereby impermissibly reversing the settled burden of proof. It emphasised that the initial burden to prove an employer-employee relationship always rests on the workman and that the rejection of the employer’s defence cannot substitute affirmative evidence of employment.
Also Read Telangana HC Grants Bail to Union Minister Bandi Sanjay Kumar’s Son in POCSO Case
The Court further held that the operational records relied upon by the respondent merely established that he worked at an IGL CNG station and did not demonstrate that IGL had appointed him, paid his wages, maintained his service records, or exercised disciplinary and administrative control over him. Since the foundational employer-employee relationship itself was not proved, the finding that the respondent had completed 240 days of continuous service also could not be sustained.
Considering that the dispute arose from an alleged termination in 2002 and more than two decades had elapsed, the Court declined to remand the matter to the Labour Court. Accordingly, the Court set aside the Labour Court’s award dated February 19, 2011 and disposed of the matter without any order as to costs.
