Delhi District Court
Charan Singh vs M/S Indian Oil Gas Plant on 15 September, 2025
Charan Singh Vs. M/s Indian Oil Gas Pland & Anr.
LIR No.644/2024
IN THE COURT OF DR. SURENDER MOHIT SINGH,
DISTRICT JUDGE
PRESIDING OFFICER: LABOUR COURT-08
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS: NEW DELHI
LIR No.644/2024
CNR No. DLCT13-003111-2024
Sh. Charan Singh
S/o Sh. Bhikham Singh
R/o House No.A-16, Gali No.1,
Near Shiv Mandir, Gaji Pur Village,
New Delhi - 110092
Through : Sh. B.N. Suman (General Secretary)
Delhi Pradesh General Mazdoor Kalyan Morcha (Regd.),
Dhamber No.K-32, Tis Hazari Court,
Delhi - 110054
...claimant
Versus
1.M/s Indian Oil Gas Plant Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi - 110076
2. M/s Mahalakshmi Bulk Carriers 84-C5, Tirchy Road, Old Ramesh Theater, Namakkal - 637001 ... Management Date of Institution : 13.05.2024 Date of Award : 15.09.2025 AWARD
1. Reference under Section 10(1)(c) read with Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been received from Deputy Labour Commissioner, South-East District, Labour Welfare Centre, Bal Mukund Khand, Giri Nagar, Kalkaji, New Page No. 1/15 Charan Singh Vs. M/s Indian Oil Gas Pland & Anr.
LIR No.644/2024Delhi setting out following dispute for adjudication by the Court:
"Whether the services of claimant Sh.
Charan Singh S/o Sh. Bhikham Singh, Mobile No.9953222074 have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management; and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"
2. Statement of claim has been filed by claimant Sh. Charan Singh in pursuance to the present Reference stating therein that he was employed through management no.2 (M/s Mahalakshmi Bulk Carriers) with management no.1 (M/s Indian Oil Gas Plant) since 21.05.2019 on the post of 'Driver' and his last drawn monthly salary was Rs.25,000/-. It is averred that he worked sincerely, honestly and diligently as per the directions and has not given any chance of complaint to the managements during his entire service tenure.
3. It is further averred that claimant used to give the details of expenses w.r.t. salary of helper, loading/unloading, challan, toll- tax and service related expenses of vehicle, to the management no.2 who deposit the amount in the account of claimant. It is averred that management only deposited the amount of Rs.25,000/- for the period from 01.09.2000 to 25.03.2021 i.e. the salary for the month of September only and on 25.03.2021 claimant was asked to station the vehicle in the Indian Oil Parking No.9 and when the claimant asked for the payment of outstanding salary for the period from 01.10.2000 to 25.03.2021, managements refused the same and told the claimant not to come Page No. 2/15 Charan Singh Vs. M/s Indian Oil Gas Pland & Anr.
LIR No.644/2024for duty from tomorrow onward and they will call him when needed. It is averred that claimant visited the managements several times for his outstanding dues and work but managements neither paid the outstanding dues nor taken back the claimant on duty.
4. It is further averred that a demand notice dated 03.01.2022 was served upon the managements seeking reinstatement with back wages and outstanding earned wages, but despite service of demand notice, same was neither replied nor complied with by the managements.
5. It is averred that due to the anti labour acts of management, the claimant filed a complaint case before the Conciliation Officer, but settlement could not be effected there due to indifferent attitude of managements and as such Conciliation Officer sent the present reference to this court.
6. It is further averred that at the time of termination of service of claimant, neither any notice, notice pay, retrenchment compensation, domestic enquiry nor payment of outstanding earned wages were made by managements in violation of mandatory provisions of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
7. It is averred that claimant has remained unemployed after his services were illegally terminated and has failed to get job despite best efforts, therefore, it is prayed that he be reinstated in service with all benefits including back wages.
8. Management no.1 M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred as M-1) has filed the written statement Page No. 3/15 Charan Singh Vs. M/s Indian Oil Gas Pland & Anr.
LIR No.644/2024contesting the claim inter alia contending that the agreement between management no.1 and management no.2 is purely on the principal to Principal basis and there is no employee-employer relationship between claimant and management no.1 and claimant is the employee of management no.2 and management no.1 does not play any role in engagement, dismissal, wages, etc. of the claimant. It is further averred that claimant herein has been independently recruited, managed and controlled by the management no.2 and he cannot be considered as 'Contract Labour' under the provisions of CLRA and, hence, no liability can be fastened on the management no.1.
9. Rejoinder/replication has also been filed by claimant to the WS of management no.1 wherein the averments made in the statement of claim were reiterated and reaffirmed.
10. Management no.2 M/s Mahalakshmi Bulk Carriers (hereinafter referred as M-2) failed to file any WS despite availing several opportunities, hence, the opportunity of management no.2 to file any defence by way of WS was closed and It was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 12.02.2025.
11. From the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed vide order dated 12.02.2025:-
(1) Whether the services of claimant were terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management? OPW (2) Whether employer-employee relationship exist between claimant and managements? OPW (3) Whether there exists no relationship of employer-employee between claimant and management no.1? OPM-1 Page No. 4/15 Charan Singh Vs. M/s Indian Oil Gas Pland & Anr.LIR No.644/2024
(4) Relief.
12. In support of his claim claimant got examined himself as WW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. WW-1/A and relied upon following documents :-
Identification Mark Description
Ex. WW-1/1 Is the appointment letter.
Ex. WW-1/2 Authorization letter in favour of claimant
given by management no.2 addressed to
management no.1.
Ex. WW-1/3 Office copy of demand notice.
Ex. WW-1/4 and Original postal receipts.
Ex. WW-1/5 Mark-A Copy of salary slip. 13. Claimant/WW-1 was cross-examined by AR for
management no.1 on 04.04.2025. During the course of cross- examination, WW-1 admitted that he was appointed and issued appointment letter by management no.2 and no ID has been issued to him. WW-1 admitted that no ID has been issued by management no.1. He deposed that his salary was used to be disbursed by management no.2 only and no salary was disbursed by management no.1 to his account and management no.1 has no role in disbursing his salary. WW-1 admitted that all the charges/taxes, etc. were used to be borne by management no.2 and not by management no.1. WW-1 deposed that his services were terminated by management no.2 and there is no employer- employee relationship between him and management no.1. He voluntarily deposed that he was only driving truck for Page No. 5/15 Charan Singh Vs. M/s Indian Oil Gas Pland & Anr.
LIR No.644/2024management no.2. Claimant's evidence was closed vide separate statement of claimant on 04.04.2025.
14. Management no.1 on the other hand got examined Sh. Divya Chauhan, Senior Manager (Employee Relations), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. as M1W1 and he tendered his evidence affidavit as Ex. M1W1/A and relied upon following documents:-
Identification Mark Description Mark-A Copy of Power of Attorney Ex. M1W1/2 (OSR) Copy of agreement.
15. M1W-1 was cross-examined by AR for claimant on 08.05.2025 and during the course of cross-examination M1W-1 deposed that workman is working with management no.2. M1W-1 deposed that management no.1 never gave any salary to the workman and management no.2 used to give salary to the workman. He deposed that management no.1 never gave any direction to management no.2 to give salary to the workman. M1W-1 denied the suggestion that management no.2 is still working with management no.1. He deposed that management no.1 is not the principal employer. Vide separate statement AR for management no.1 closed the ME on 08.05.2025.
16. ARs for claimant and management no.1 have addressed their submissions/arguments by adverting to pleadings and testimony in support of their respective contentions.
17. I have minutely perused the record and considered their rival submissions.
Page No. 6/15Charan Singh Vs. M/s Indian Oil Gas Pland & Anr.
LIR No.644/2024Findings
18. Issue no.2 and issue no.3 are interconnected with each other, hence, they are taken up together.
Issue No.2 & 3Issue no.2 - Whether employer-employee relationship exist between claimant and managements? OPW Issue no.3 - Whether there exists no relationship of employer-employee between claimant and management no.1? OPM-1
19. It is well settled principle of law that a person who sets up a plea of existence of employer-employee relation is required to adduce cogent evidence for discharging the burden as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in ' Workmen of Nilgiri Co- operative Marketing Society Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 514'. Paras 47 to 49 of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court being relevant are extracted below:
47. It is a well-settled principle of law that the person who sets up a plea of existence of relationship of employer and employee, the burden would be upon him.
48. In N.C. John Vs. Secy, Thodupuzha Taluk Shop and Commercial Establishment Workers' Union, the Kerala High Court held:
The burden of proof being on the workmen to establish the employer-employee 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.Page No. 7/15
Charan Singh Vs. M/s Indian Oil Gas Pland & Anr.LIR No.644/2024
49. In Swapan Das Gupta Vs. The First Labour Court of West Bengal it has been held:
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.
20. Scope and ambit of Section 2(oo), Section 25B and Section 25F of I.D Act was considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in para 6 of judgment in "Surendernagar District Panchayat Vs. Dahyabhai Amarsinh" (2005) 8 SCC 750 for observing that claimant claiming protection under Section 25F of I.D. Act has to prove (i) existence of employer-employee relation; (ii) employment as claimant within the meaning of Section 2(s) of I.D. Act; (iii) establishment being an industry under Section 2(j) of I.D. Act AND (iv) continuous service under the employer as defined under Section 25B of I.D. Act.
21. Upon perusal of the aforementioned judgments, it can be summarily stated that the position with regard to the burden of proving the relationship of employee-employer is no longer res integra, the said burden primarily rests upon the person who asserts its existence, but the degree of proof which is required to be established, varies on a case to case basis. Existence of Employer-Employee Relationship
22. The contention of M-1 is that no employer-employee relationship exist between claimant and M-1, hence, claimant is not entitled to seek relief against it. In support of his contention, Page No. 8/15 Charan Singh Vs. M/s Indian Oil Gas Pland & Anr.
LIR No.644/2024the AR for M-1 has relied upon the judgment "The Managing Director, Hassan Co-operative Milk Producer's Society Union Limited vs. The Assistant Regional Director Employees State Insurance Corporation (Civil Appeal No.3816/2010 decided on 26.04.2010) AND Boc India Ltd. vs. Assistant Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation (2004 (5) ALD 713)."
23. The law relating to employer-employee relationship is well explained by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in "Airport Authority of India Vs. A.S. Yadav and Ors., W.P. (C) 5168/2005 and CM No.47971/2029" wherein the Hon'ble High Court has made reference to paragraphs 37 to 39 of the decision in "International Airport Authority of India V. International Cargo Workers' Union and Another, (2009) 13SCC 374" which reads as under :-
"37. The industrial adjudicator can grant the relief sought if it finds that contract between the principal employer and the contractor is sham, nominal and merely a camouflage to deny employment benefits to the employer and that there is in fact a direct employment, by applying tests like: who pays the salary; who has the power to remove/dismiss from service or initiate disciplinary action; who has direction and employee the way in which the work should be done, in short, who has direction and control over the employee. But where there is no notification under Section 10 of the CLRA Act and where it is not proved in the industrial adjudication that the contract was a sham/nominal and camouflage, then the question of directing the principal employer to Page No. 9/15 Charan Singh Vs. M/s Indian Oil Gas Pland & Anr.LIR No.644/2024
absorb or regularize the services of the contract labour does not arise.
38. The tests that are applies to find out whether a person is an employee or an independent contractor may not automatically apply in finding out whether the contract labour agreement is a sham, nominal and is a mere camouflage. For example, if the contract is for supply of labour, necessarily, the labour supplied by the contractor will work under the directions, supervision and control of the principal employer, if the salary is paid by a contractor, if the right to regulate the employment is with the contractor and the ultimate supervision and control lies with the contractor.
39. The principal employer only controls and directs the work to be done by a contract labour, when such labour is assigned/allotted/allotted/sent to him. But it is the contractor as employer, who choose whether the worker is to be assigned/allotted to the principal employer or used otherwise. In short, worker being the employee of the contractor, the ultimate supervision and control lies with the contractor as he decides where the employee will work and how long he will work and subject to what conditions. Only when the contractor assigns/sends the worker to work under the principal employer, the worker works under the supervision and control of the principal employer but that is secondary control. The primary control is with the contractor."Page No. 10/15
Charan Singh Vs. M/s Indian Oil Gas Pland & Anr.
LIR No.644/202424. Relying upon Airport Authority case (Supra), in a dispute of existence of employer-employee relationship, the court adjudicating the dispute is required to examine as to (1) who pays salary to the claimant, (2) who possesses the power to initiate disciplinary action against him and (3) whether the alleged employer has any control and supervision over the claimant claimant.
25. Further in 'Balwant Rai Saluja and Another Vs. Air India Limited and Others (2014 (9) SCC 407)' the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under :-
"65. Thus, it can be concluded that the relevant factors to be taken into consideration to establish an employer- employee relationship would include, inter alia:"
"(i) who appoints the workers; (ii) who pays the salary/remuneration; (iii) who has the authority to dismiss; (iv) who can take disciplinary action; (v) whether there is continuity of service;
and (vi) extent of control and supervision i.e. whether there exists complete control and supervision."
26. In order to prove employer-employee relationship, claimant relied upon his own testimony, appointment letter (Ex. WW-1/1), authorization letter (Ex. WW-1/2) and photocopy of salary slip Mark-A.
27. During the course of cross-examination, claimant deposed that he was appointed by management no.2. He also deposed that management no.2 issued appointment letter (Ex. WW-1/1) and Page No. 11/15 Charan Singh Vs. M/s Indian Oil Gas Pland & Anr.
LIR No.644/2024salary slip (Mark-A) but not issued I-Card. He also admitted that all the charges/taxes etc. were used to be borne by management no.2. He voluntarily deposed that he was driving truck for management no.2. He deposed that his services were terminated by management no.2.
28. WW-1/claimant explicitly admitted that there is no employer-employee relationship between him and management no.1. He also deposed that management no.1 never issued any appointment letter or ID and never disbursed salary to his account. He further admitted that no charges/taxes were borne by management no.1.
29. On the other hand, during the cross-examination M1W-1 has also deposed that claimant is working with management no.2 and management no.1 never gave any salary to the claimant and management no.2 used to give salary to the claimant. He deposed that management no.1 never gave any direction to management no.2 to give salary to the claimant and denied that management no.2 is still working with management no.1. He deposed that management no.1 is not the principal employer.
30. In the present case, the evidence on record shows that the claimant was employed by M-2 and deputed to work at M-1. The terms of employment including salary were managed by M-2. All employment related documents such as appointment letter (Ex.WW1/1), authorization letter (Ex.WW1/2) and salary slip (Mark-A) were issued by M-2. M-1 did not issue any appointment letter, salary slip, I-Card or other employment related documents to the claimant.
Page No. 12/15Charan Singh Vs. M/s Indian Oil Gas Pland & Anr.
LIR No.644/202431. The instructions issued by the employees of M-1 at the workplace/M-1 does not amount to control and supervision as held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Airports Authority of India case (Supra). The ultimate control and supervision was with the M-2.
32. There is no direct contractual relationship between the claimant and M-1, therefor, no employer-employee relationship exist between claimant and M-1.
33. Since there is no employer-employee relationship exist between claimant and M-1, the claim petition of claimant is not maintainable against M-1.
34. Accordingly, issues no.3 is decided in favour of management no.1 and against the claimant.
35. The evidences on record i.e. Ex. WW-1/1, Ex. WW-1/2 and Mark-A clearly shows that there was an employer-employee relationship between claimant and management no.2. Accordingly, issue no.2 is partly decided in favour of claimant to the extent of management no.2.
36. Issue no.1 - Whether the services of claimant were terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management? OPW
37. The onus to prove this issue was upon the claimant and claimant has already proved the relationship of employer- employee between him and management no.2 and as the testimony of claimant/WW-1 and the documents relied upon by the claimant being unassailed are deemed to be admitted by the managements. Hence, having proved himself as an employee of Page No. 13/15 Charan Singh Vs. M/s Indian Oil Gas Pland & Anr.
LIR No.644/2024management no.2, and the fact that the management no.2 has chosen not to contest the present statement of claim, the court has come to conclusion that the management no.2 has accepted the contentions made by the claimant by virtue of the present proceedings.
38. In these circumstances, the court hereby hold that indeed the services of claimant were terminated illegally/unjustifiably by the management no.2. Furthermore, there is no contest on the part of the management no.2 w.r.t contention of the claimant that he remained unemployed from the date of his termination till date.
39. It is, however, well settled law that reinstatement with full back wages is not to be granted automatically in case of illegal termination and Labour Court can mould the relief by granting lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages as held in (i) Municipal Council Sujanpur Vs. Surinder Kumar 2006 LLR 662; (ii) Nehru Yuva Kendra Sanghathan Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2000 IV AD (Delhi) 709; (iii) Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Salvan Public School & Ors. W.P.(C) 5820 Dated 17.11.2014.
40. Though claimant has averred of having remained jobless since termination of service, but it is ridiculous to believe his version as claimant being a Driver could not have remained idle had he seriously tried to find alternate employment.
41. Reinstatement with back wages is therefore ruled out in the absence of any averment either in claim or in affidavit about efforts made by the claimant for re-employment. Accordingly, I Page No. 14/15 Charan Singh Vs. M/s Indian Oil Gas Pland & Anr.
LIR No.644/2024deem it appropriate to grant compensation to the claimant instead of reinstatement with full back wages. Hence, statement of claim is partly allowed and considering the length of service and last drawn wage of claimant i.e. Rs.25,000/-, a lump sum amount of Rs.6,50,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) is awarded to claimant as compensation.
42. Amount of compensation be paid to claimant within two months from the date of award failing which management no.2 shall also pay interest @ 6% per annum on aforesaid amount from the date of award till the date of realization.
43. Reference stands answered in aforesaid terms.
44. Copy of Award be sent to Deputy Labour Commissioner, South-East District, Labour Welfare Centre, Bal Mukund Khand, Giri Nagar, Kalkaji, New Delhi for publication.
45. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally
Announced in the open court on signed by
SURENDER
SURENDER MOHIT
Dt: 15.09.2025 MOHIT SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.09.17
10:56:20
+0530
(Dr. Surender Mohit Singh)
District Judge,
POLC-08/RACC
New Delhi
Page No. 15/15