Background

Satish Kumar filed a complaint in the industrial tribunal against HCDI, declaring his dismissal illegal. He claimed to have worked as a full-time employee from March 29, 1995, with a salary of Rs. 3,120 per month. He maintained that his dismissal was illegal and based on an altercation over regularization. He insisted on his reinstatement with back pay.

The respondent, HCDI, is a registered public charitable trust. He denied the allegations and maintained that it was not even an “industry” within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. He further stated that Kumar was not permanently employed. He was hired to clean casually on a daily wage basis. The respondent explained that his service was terminated because he was of a threatening nature and had not completed the mandatory 240 days of service in a calendar year. The Employment Tribunal framed the questions as follows: first, whether HCDI was an “industry”; second, whether an employer-employee relationship existed, and third, whether the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement and back pay. He ultimately ruled against Kumar, finding no evidence to establish HCDI as an “industry” or to prove the existence of an employer-employee relationship. Aggrieved, Kumar filed a writ petition.

Arguments

Kumar maintained that he had worked for HCDI as a full-time employee for over a decade. He argued that the mere absence of a letter of appointment did not preclude his otherwise regular employment. Kumar maintained that his work was permanent in nature and not casual. He argued that the HCDI’s terming him as a daily wager was a mere facade to deny him the benefits of regularization and gratuity. Further, Kumar argued that the industrial court overlooked important evidence. This included proof of payment submitted by him, which he claimed demonstrated his continued service.

HCDI maintained that it is a charitable institution and therefore does not engage in industrial activities. He argued that the burden of proving the contrary was on the applicant – which he had failed to discharge. He also argued that Kumar had no formal employment, his cleaning work was sporadic and he was paid daily. Finally, the HCDI highlighted the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226, emphasizing that the findings of the Labor Court did not justify interference.

Court reasoning

The court first considered whether HCDI could be considered an “industry” within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. He noted that HCDI is a charitable trust aimed at providing aid to poor and orphaned children. The court emphasized that the burden of proving otherwise was on Kumar, but no evidence was presented to that end. The court relied on State of Gujarat v. Pratamsingh Narsinh Parmar, (2001) 9 SCC 713which specifies that it is the plaintiff’s responsibility to establish the industrial nature of the defendant’s activities.

Second, the court considered the existence of an employer-employee relationship. She observed that Kumar had not clarified the nature of his engagement or produced documentary evidence to prove a regular employment contract. He noted that the payment vouchers presented by Kumar revealed that he was paid on a daily basis for cleaning work, indicating occasional engagement. The court found no evidence of a permanent or continuing employment arrangement.

Finally, the Court recalled the limited role of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. While relying on Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah (1955 SCC OnLine SC 21), he noted that a judicial tribunal cannot become a court of appeal. The jurisdiction of the High Court is intended only to correct procedural errors or to deal with a claim of substantial injustice. Accordingly, the court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the Labor Court’s award.

Decided on: November 29, 2024

Case number: WP(C) 5664/2010

Case name: Satish Kumar v. Holistic Child Development India and others

Petitioner’s advice: Mr. Sarfaraz Khan

Defendant’s lawyer: Mr. Babu Malayil