The Orissa High Court in 2025 clarified that a workman’s entitlement to reinstatement and back wages under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is contingent on clearly proving an employer-employee relationship and the direct payment of wages by the management. The Court set aside a Tribunal award for failure to consider admitted documentary evidence and reaffirmed the limits of writ jurisdiction, offering binding authority for subordinate courts in similar factual contexts.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP(C)/12497/2018 of INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. Vs THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT: CNR ODHC010388242018 |
| Date of Registration | 03-08-2018 |
| Decision Date | 29-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Allowed |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA, MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO |
| Court | Orissa High Court |
| Bench | JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA, JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO |
| Precedent Value | Binding upon subordinate courts within Orissa |
| Overrules / Affirms | Set aside the Tribunal award; reaffirms settled principles on evidence and writ review scope |
| Type of Law | Labour Law / Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 |
| Questions of Law | Whether a workman is entitled to reinstatement and back wages without concrete proof of employer-employee relationship and direct engagement by the management under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that proving the employer-employee relationship is essential for any relief under the Industrial Disputes Act. The absence of documentary evidence, such as appointment letter or wage documents from the management, is fatal to the workman’s case. Admissions on relevant documentary evidence, such as wage receipts from a contractor, cannot be ignored by the Tribunal. The Court further held that non-consideration of admitted and material evidence constitutes an error of law, thus warranting interference even within writ jurisdiction. The Tribunal erred in directing reinstatement and back wages without such proof. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | M/s Dena Bank Vs. Ghanashyam (2001) 5 SCC 169; Syed Yakoob Vs. K.S.Radhakrishnan AIR 1964 SC 477; The Scientist in-charge, Regional Museum of Natural History Vs. Sri Gangadhar Das (2020); Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai (2003) 6 SCC 675; Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath (2015) 5 SCC 423; Director, Fisheries Terminal Division Vs. Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Chavda (2010) 1 SCC 47; R.M. Yellatti Vs. Assistant Executive Engineer (2006) 1 SCC 106; Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ramkishan (2001) ILLJ 1411 Delhi |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Admissibility of documentary evidence even with denial of signature if marked on admission; limits of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227—writ courts do not sit as appellate courts but can interfere for error of law and non-consideration of material evidence; settled burden on workman to prove employer-employee relationship; principle that absence of adverse inference when no request for production of documents is made. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The workman claimed continuous engagement as a liaison worker for IOCL and challenged termination for non-payment of wages/proper process. IOCL refuted any direct engagement, asserting contractor engagement and lack of employer-employee relationship, producing salary slips from a contractor. The Tribunal ordered reinstatement; the High Court, upon writ petition, found no proof of direct appointment or payment by IOCL to the workman and set aside the Tribunal’s award. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the State of Orissa |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, especially in cases involving labour disputes and procedural review of Tribunal awards |
| Overrules | Set aside the award of Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in ID Case No. 266 of 2001 |
| Follows | Follows and applies M/s Dena Bank Vs. Ghanashyam (2001) 5 SCC 169; Syed Yakoob Vs. K.S.Radhakrishnan AIR 1964 SC 477 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that strict proof of an employer-employee relationship is mandatory for claiming relief under the Industrial Disputes Act.
- Affirms that wage payment slips by a contractor, when marked on admission, are dispositive against a claim of direct employment.
- Clarifies that mere denial of signature by a workman on documents already marked as admitted evidence does not diminish their evidentiary value.
- Reasserts the High Court’s limited role in writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, while permitting interference where findings are based on ignoring admitted and material evidence (error of law).
- No adverse inference can be drawn for non-production of employer’s records unless a specific request has been made.
- Tribunal’s failure to consider admitted and material evidence amounts to legal error and miscarriage of justice.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court scrutinized whether the workman was directly engaged by the management or a contractor. The workman failed to produce any appointment letter or wage slip from IOCL.
- The employer (IOCL) provided salary slips (Ext. ‘A’ and ‘B’) proving payment by a contractor, which had been marked on admission and bore the workman’s acknowledgment.
- The Tribunal did not discuss or evaluate these documents, a non-consideration of material/admitted evidence, which is an error of law.
- The workman’s denial of signatures on these admitted documents was not sufficient to rebut their evidentiary value.
- The Court reaffirmed principles from Syed Yakoob and The Scientist in-charge, Regional Museum of Natural History, regarding writ review: writ courts do not reappreciate facts but can interfere for legal errors and disregard of material evidence.
- The burden of proof lies on the workman to establish the employer-employee relationship, which was not discharged.
- The direction for reinstatement and back wages is unsustainable in the absence of evidence showing direct employment by IOCL.
- Affirmed that the excess payment under interim orders may be recovered under the Dena Bank principle.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Management / IOCL):
- No employer-employee relationship with the workman.
- Workman engaged and paid by Contractor (M/s Port Service Station); salary slips produced.
- Tribunal based its award on presumption and ignored admitted documents.
- Burden of proving 240 days’ work and direct engagement not met by workman.
- No request from workman to produce salary registers; hence, no adverse inference.
- Relied on Dena Bank and other Supreme Court judgments on the law of evidence and retrenchment.
Respondent (Workman):
- Claimed direct engagement by IOCL’s Deputy Manager; worked for two years and four months.
- Asserted IOCL paid wages directly; gate passes issued for work at IOCL’s request.
- Contractor neither registered nor proven to exist; denied signature on contractor’s salary slips.
- No reason to doubt continuous work of 240 days; management didn’t contest this fact.
- Alleged management’s failure to produce payment register was suppression of evidence.
- Relied on Syed Yakoob, Director Fisheries, R.M. Yellatti, and other authorities to support jurisdiction and factual findings.
Factual Background
The dispute arose over the termination of a liaison worker allegedly engaged at an IOCL depot through a contractor for over two years. The workman claimed direct engagement and non-payment of wages before unjust termination, while IOCL asserted he was employed and paid only by the contractor. The Industrial Tribunal ordered reinstatement with 50% back wages, which IOCL challenged before the High Court, disputing the employer-employee relationship and highlighting material documentary evidence ignored by the Tribunal.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (reference by the Appropriate Government).
- Section 2(s): Definition of “workman,” at the center of the dispute.
- Section 25F: Requirements for retrenchment protections considered, but application denied since no employer-employee relationship was established.
- The Court focused on the material necessity to fulfill statutory criteria for “workman” and proper retrenchment, but held that without employer-employee relationship, Section 25F does not apply.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law on burden of proof, scope of writ review, and evidentiary standards reaffirmed.