In the case of Ashok Singh Tomar v. The Forest Range Officer and Others, the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition challenging a Labour Court order that denied the petitioner’s claim for reinstatement and back wages. Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke ruled that Ashok Singh Tomar failed to provide adequate evidence to establish an employer-employee relationship with the Forest Department. The court reiterated that affidavits or self-serving documents were insufficient to substantiate such claims.
Background
Ashok Singh Tomar alleged that he was employed as a security guard in the Soi Beat Forest Range and was orally terminated without adherence to the provisions of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Claiming to have completed 240 days of continuous service in the previous year, he sought reinstatement and back wages through the Labour Court, which dismissed his plea due to a lack of credible evidence of his employment.
Arguments
Tomar relied on an identity card and witness testimony to substantiate his claims of employment and continuous service. He also argued that the respondent’s failure to produce employment records should result in an adverse inference. Conversely, the respondents contended that Tomar was engaged by the Forest Security Society, an independent private entity. They denied any employer-employee relationship with the Forest Department and pointed out the lack of substantive evidence, such as salary slips or appointment records, to support Tomar’s claims.
Court’s Reasoning
Justice Phadke observed that Tomar’s evidence, including his identity card, lacked official signatures or any link to the Forest Department. The court found the petitioner’s witness testimonies unreliable, citing contradictions with existing records. Referring to precedents like Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani and Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas, the court reaffirmed that the burden of proving continuous service rested on the petitioner.
The court also clarified that procedural lapses, such as oral termination, were irrelevant without proof of employment. It dismissed the argument for an adverse inference, as the petitioner had failed to meet the initial burden of proof.
Conclusion
The court upheld the Labour Court’s decision, dismissing Tomar’s petition for lack of evidence. It ruled that no violation of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act could be established without proving an employer-employee relationship.
Decided On: December 5, 2024
Case No.: W.P. 5844 of 2018
Lawcutor 