The Branch Manager Hpgb Vs Koll Singh

For the Petitioner: Mr. Pushpender Verma, Advocate vice Mr. Kul Bhushan Khajuria, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Dhanush Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Praveen Chauhan, Advocate.

¶12

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶13

Petitioner has taken exception to the award passed by Learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. on 18.11.2024 allowing the reference of respondent workman.

¶14

2. Following dispute was referred for

¶15

determination to the learned Labour Court:-

¶16

“Whether termination of services of Shri Koll Singh S/o Shri Chatter Singh, R/o Village Kulal, P.O. Mindhal, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. during May, 2015 by the Employer/Branch Manger, H.P. Gramin Bank, Branch Sach, Tehsil Pangi, District

¶17

1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

¶18

2

¶19

Chamba, H.P., without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is legal and justified? If not, what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above worker is entitled to from the above employer?”

¶20

The respondent workman claimed that he belonged to a tribal, remote and hard area of Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba. He was engaged on 24.04.2014 by the petitioner bank in its branch at Sach, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. on daily wage basis. Appointment letter was not issued to him. He continued to serve the petitioner bank till oral termination of his services on 16.05.2015. During period of his service, petitioner bank paid him ₹2000/- per month as wages. His services were orally terminated without issuing any notice and without giving any reason. The respondent workman also alleged violation of principle of ‘Last come first go’ by the petitioner bank in as much as those junior to him were allowed to continue. Some of the juniors were named in the claim petition. Respondent also asserted that any forced break reflected by the bank in his service record be also counted for the purpose of calculation of 160 days of continuous service (requisite service in tribal area). Respondent further claimed that he had been working in accounts, scanning, voucher, KYC files, filling up of

¶21

3

¶22

account form, account holder, postage, KCC account holders works etc. as per directions issued to him by the petitioner bank from time to time. That he also visited remote areas in Pangi every Sunday to make the villagers aware about the insurance and other schemes of the bank. The workman also claimed to have done cleaning and sweeping work in the bank at Sach. Respondent workman further pleaded that he remained unemployed from the date of illegal termination of his service and prayed for setting-aside this oral termination/ retrenchment w.e.f. 16.05.2015. Prayer was accordingly made for respondent’s reinstatement in service alongwith seniority, continuity of service and other consequential benefits including back wages from the date of illegal termination.

¶23

The petitioner’s defence was that of complete denial. According to the petitioner neither the respondent was engaged by them nor he served at any point of time with them nor his services were orally terminated by the petitioner. Petitioner denied giving any remuneration whatsoever to the respondent workman.

¶24

Parties led evidence in support of their respective stands.

¶25

4

¶26

On consideration of entire case, learned Labour

¶27

Court allowed the claim. Termination of respondent’s services was held to be illegal and unjustified. He was held entitled for reinstatement as daily waged Safai Karamchari alongwith compensation of ₹50,000/- in lieu of back wages.

¶28

3. In the above backdrop, the bank has preferred this writ petition laying challenge to the award passed by learned Labour Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the parties. It was for the respondent workman to have established this relationship and the respondent having failed to discharge the burden, his claim petition could not have been allowed by learned Labour Court. It was also submitted that learned Labour Court had incorrectly drawn adverse inference against the petitioner only on the ground of petitioner’s having failed to produce the record of payment made to the respondent. In support of his plea, reliance was placed upon following paras of Workmen of Nilgiri Coop. Mkt. Society Ltd. versus State of T.N and others.² :-

¶29

“ BURDEN OF PROOF:

¶30

It is a well-settled principle of law that the person who sets up a plea of existence of

¶31

2(2004) 3 SCC 514

¶32

5

¶33

relationship of employer and employee, the burden would be upon him.

¶34

In N.C. John Vs. Secretary Thodupuzha Taluk Shop and Commercial Establishment Workers' Union and Others, 1973 Lab. I.C. 398, the Kerala High Court held:

¶35

"The burden of proof being on the workmen to establish the employeremployee relationship an adverse inference cannot be drawn against the employer that if he were to produce books of accounts they would have proved employer-employee relationship."

¶36

In Swapan das Gupta and Others Vs. The First Labour Court of West Bengal and Others, 1975 Lab. I.C. 202, it has been held:

¶37

"Where a person asserts that he was a workmen of the Company, and it is denied by the Company, it is for him to prove the fact. It is not for the Company to prove that he was not an employee of the Company but of some other person."

¶38

The question whether the relationship between the parties is one of the employer and employee is a pure question of fact and ordinarily the High Court while exercising its power of judicial review shall not interfere therewith unless the finding is manifestly or obviously erroneous or perverse.

¶39

Learned counsel for the respondent supported

¶40

the impugned award.

¶41

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file.

¶42

It was the case of the respondent workman that he had been engaged on daily wage basis by the

¶43

6

¶44

petitioner bank but without issuing him any appointment order. That he continued to discharge duties in several sections of the petitioner bank on wages of ₹2000/- per month paid by the petitioner. Respondent workman had alleged violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as also the principle of ‘Last come first go’. Petitioner bank had denied the case of the respondent in totality. Petitioner had refused to recognize & acknowledge the respondent. According to the petitioner, respondent had never served with them. They never employed him in any capacity whatsoever. They never paid him any remuneration. Therefore, there was no question of their orally terminating the service of respondent. However this stand of the petitioner bank of denying the employer employee relationship was belied by none else but their own officer Shri Chanpreet Singh, Assistant Manger, Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank who appeared in the witness box as RW-1. During the course of his cross-examination, the officer self-stated (Annexure R-1) that respondent was ‘engaged by the bank intermittently for scanning the accounts signatures’. This admission of the official of the petitioner bank thrashed the entire defence of the petitioner and established employer employee relationship between the parties.

¶45

7

¶46

Keeping in view the respective stands of the parties, learned Labour Court justly held that relationship of employer and employee stood established. In view of this, it was for the petitioner bank to have led further evidence by producing the records of payment made to the respondent workman or any other contemporary record about the nature of his engagement and the payment made to him. Since the petitioner bank did not produce any evidence/record of the work & payment made to respondent during his tenure with the bank, learned Labour Court justiciably drew adverse inference that had the petitioner produced the record it would have invariably proved case of the respondent workman of his having been employed for the requisite statutory period under the Act on daily wage basis. That respondent’s employment by the petitioner without keeping any record of the payment made to him, without maintaining record of number of days of employment, would lead to bonafide presumption about this being deliberate act of the petitioner to deprive the respondent of the benefits to which he would have been entitled. Further, learned Labour Court has also justly drawn the conclusion from another set of pleadings where the respondent workman specifically alleged about having also served as Safai

¶47

8

¶48

Karamchari with the petitioner bank and petitioner bank having retained services of the persons junior to the respondent after orally terminating respondent’s service. Petitioner bank had failed to produce any record of the person who worked/ served as Safai Karamchari that is the work which the respondent workman had alleged to have performed during the period in question. In the backdrop of statement made by RW-1, this had become imperative for the petitioner bank as the initial burden on the respondent workman stood discharged. In the given facts, learned Labour Court drew correct conclusions from suppression of material facts/records by the petitioner bank.

¶49

For the foregoing reasons, impugned award does not warrant any interference. This writ petition, therefore, lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶50

Jyotsna Rewal Dua April 01, 2026 Judge yogesh

The Branch Manager Hpgb v. Koll Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Branch Manager Hpgb v. Koll Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mosam Deen Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Ranu Ram Vs Hpseb Ltd.

Tilak Raj Vs the Bar Council of India and Another

Daljeet Singh Vs Devesh Kumar and Others

State of Hp and Another Vs Keshav Chand

Virender Singh Vs State of Hp and Anr.