Madhya Pradesh High Court Ruling on Burden of Proof in Continuous Service Claims

Introduction

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently delivered a key judgment clarifying the burden of proof in cases concerning claims of continuous employment by workers. The case arose from a labor dispute in which the petitioner, a worker, contested his termination, arguing that he had rendered continuous service for more than 240 days in a year.

Case Background

The worker, employed on a daily wage basis, was terminated without prior notice or the provision of retrenchment compensation. He filed a complaint asserting that his termination violated Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which mandates specific procedures for the retrenchment of employees, including the provision of notice and compensation. He claimed that he had been employed continuously for more than 240 days in the year preceding his termination, thereby making his retrenchment unlawful.

The Labor Court, however, dismissed his plea. The court held that the worker had failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate his claim of continuous service. It observed that the worker did not submit adequate documentation proving that he had been engaged for the requisite 240 days.

High Court’s Ruling on Burden of Proof

On appeal, the Madhya Pradesh High Court took a different view. The court noted that once a worker asserts continuous employment, the burden of proof shifts to the employer to disprove the claim. In this context, the High Court ruled that it was the responsibility of the employer to maintain and produce the necessary employment records that could confirm or deny the worker’s claim. The court emphasized that since the employer is in control of the employment records, it would be unfair to expect a daily wage worker to produce documentary evidence that is typically held by the employer.

The High Court underscored that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 places the onus on employers to adhere to lawful retrenchment procedures, including maintaining adequate records of employment. If the employer fails to provide these records, courts may presume that the worker’s claims regarding continuous service are valid. In this case, the employer had not provided any documentation to refute the worker’s claim of continuous service, which led the court to rule in favor of the petitioner.

Impact of the Decision

The ruling is significant as it reaffirms the principle that workers, particularly those in precarious employment, cannot be expected to produce documents that are within the employer's possession. By shifting the burden of proof to employers, the judgment strengthens worker protections under labor laws, ensuring that termination procedures are followed fairly and that workers' rights are upheld.

Conclusion

The Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision serves as an important reminder to employers about the need for proper record-keeping and compliance with retrenchment laws. It also reinforces the notion that the burden of proof in continuous service claims lies with the employer, providing a safeguard for workers in disputes concerning unlawful termination.

Court Practice Community

WhatsApp Group Invite

Join WhatsApp Community