< Back
Delhi High Court
Justice Manoj Jain, Delhi High Court
Delhi High Court
Once Employee Testifies Under Oath, Burden Of Proof Shifts To Employer To Disprove Claims: Delhi High Court
|21 May 2025 12:00 PM IST
The Delhi High Court was considering a Petition against an award whereby the Respondent was held to be in continuous employment of the Management and, resultantly, was awarded compensation of ₹70,000/-.
The Delhi High Court has held that once an employee testifies on oath, the burden of proof shifts to employer to disprove the claims made.
The Court was considering a Petition against an award whereby the Respondent was held to be in continuous employment of the Management and, resultantly, she was awarded compensation of ₹70,000/-.
The Bench of Justice Manoj Jain held, "....Burden of proof, in any enquiry or trial, keeps on shifting and the moment the averments made in the claim petition were deposed on oath by the respondent in her evidence, it was for the Management to have rebutted and disproved the same."
The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Tushar Sannu, while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Ankit Dwivedi.
Facts of the Case
Respondent had raised industrial dispute because she was aggrieved by the alelged illegal termination of her services. She averred that she was working as Safai Karamchari with the Management since May, 2007 and that her last-drawn monthly salary was ₹5,500/-. According to her, Management had not provided her with any facility, including various allowances like HRA, Transport Allowance, leaves etc. and despite persistent request made in this regard and despite assurance given by Management, needful was not done. She claimed therein that salary paid to her was less than the minimum wages prescribed by Delhi Government and when she raised objection in this regard with the Management, getting annoyed, the Management, instead, terminated her services on April 24, 2015.
On the other hand, the Petitioner contended that their Hospital was owned by Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) and the sanitation services was outsourced by them. In year 2014, M/s ACME Enterprises was providing such sanitation services and it was the duty of such service provider to pay wages to such workers. According to the Management, the name of the Respondent in question was not even figuring in the list of workers provided by M/s ACME Enterprises and it was also denied that she was working in the hospital as Safai Karamchari since May, 2007.
The Management also claimed in its written statement that in September 2014, contractor left the services, suo moto, without any prior notice and in order to ensure that there was no disruption of sanitation services and also in view of the fact that there was no breathing-time to make any alternate arrangement, sanitation workers were hired on daily-wage basis. However, once the new tender for sanitation services in DDU Hospital was finalized in April, 2015 and the Award was given to the concerned service provider as per tender outcome, services of daily-wage workers were discontinued. The Management also claimed that it had not obtained signatures of any such daily-wager on a blank paper or voucher and it also provided the details of minimum wages, paid to Respondent between September 3rd, 2014 to April 24, 2015.
Thus, it was contended that Respondent was not working on regular basis and was not appointed as regular employee in the hospital and being daily-wager, her claim had no merit and, therefore, it prayed that claim be dismissed.
Counsel for the Management contended that the submissions given in the written statement were not appreciated in the desired manner and there was nothing to indicate that respondent was under the employment of the Management. It was reiterated that sanitation services had been outsourced to M/s ACME Enterprises who left the services on their own and there was never any privity of contract between them and the Respondent
It was also contended that initial onus was on the Respondent to prove that she was in continuous employment of 240 days, prior to the alleged date of her termination. Since she failed to discharge her such initial onus and there was nothing to indicate that she was working under the Management since May, 2007, the claim should have, rather, was dismissed.
Reasoning By Court
The Court, at the outset, noted that the Respondent has made clear and specific averments regarding her appointment in her Statement of Claim and reiterated her stand in her examination-in-chief.
"....Her deposition is, virtually, uncontroverted and unchallenged. The sketchy cross-examination done by the Management goes on to indicate that the Management does not dispute the claim and averments made by her," the Court noted.
It pointed out that while the Management insists that there was no privity of contract and that sanitation contract have been given to M/s ACME Enterprises, who left the services abruptly, no details of such contract have been placed on record
"According to the Management, even otherwise, respondent was not even employed by such outsourced agency and that her name did not figure in the list provided to them. However, again, Management faltered as no such list was produced or proved during the trial. Interestingly, the Management itself admitted that after M/s ACME Enterprises left the services, midway, it hired certain workers as dailywagers. Once they claim so, it was imperative for them to have placed on record, the details of all such daily-wagers whom they allegedly employed. Nothing of that kind was done by them and, therefore, they cannot be heard saying that respondent failed to discharge her onus," the Court observed.
The Petition was accordingly dismissed.
Cause Title: Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital vs. Sangeeta (2025: DHC: 3838)
Appearances:
Petitioner- Advocate Tushar Sannu, Advocate Utkarsh Singh
Respondent- Advocate Ankit Dwivedi
Click here to read/ download Order