The Delhi High Court ruled that once an employee testifies under oath, the burden of proof shifts to the employer. This judgment reaffirms the rights of workers under Indian labor law and highlights key obligations under the Industrial Disputes Act.

Delhi High Court Shifts Burden of Proof to Employer After Employee Testimony

In a landmark ruling, the Delhi High Court has held that once an employee testifies under oath, the burden of proof shifts to the employer. The case involved Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital and a sanitation worker, with Justice Manoj Jain presiding over the matter.

Background: Sanitation Worker Denied Minimum Wage

The case dates back to 2007 when Sangeeta began working at Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital as a sanitation worker, earning Rs. 5,500 per month. She alleged the hospital failed to provide basic employment benefits such as House Rent Allowance, transport allowance, and paid leave. According to her, the salary was also below the Delhi Government’s prescribed minimum wage.

After she raised concerns with the hospital management, her employment was terminated in 2015. In response, Sangeeta filed an industrial dispute, claiming she was unjustly dismissed.

Hospital Claims Contractual Outsourcing

The hospital argued that Sangeeta was not their employee but was engaged by contractor M/s ACME Enterprises. They claimed all sanitation services were outsourced, and her employment ended in April 2015 after a new contractor was appointed.

They insisted that Sangeeta’s name was absent from the contractor’s roster and that she had failed to prove continuous employment for over 240 days as required by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 under Section 25F.

Labor Court Awards Compensation, Hospital Appeals

Despite the hospital’s arguments, the labor court ruled in favor of Sangeeta and awarded her Rs. 70,000 as compensation. Unhappy with the decision, the hospital appealed the ruling to the Delhi High Court.

Court Analysis: Shifting Burden of Proof

Justice Manoj Jain upheld the labor court’s decision. He ruled that while the initial burden to prove continuous employment lies with the employee, once the employee provides substantial evidence—such as salary checks and an unchallenged sworn statement—the burden then shifts to the employer.

In this case, Sangeeta’s sworn testimony and payment records sufficed to shift the responsibility to the hospital. However, the hospital failed to provide documentation supporting its outsourcing claims, such as a valid contract with M/s ACME Enterprises or a list of workers employed by the contractor.

No Reinstatement, Only Compensation

While acknowledging the unlawful termination, the court declined to order Sangeeta’s reinstatement. Citing a long lapse of time and improper hiring practices, the judge ruled that monetary compensation was more appropriate. The court emphasized that appointing government workers without following due procedure would violate Article 16 of the Indian Constitution.

The court referred to the precedent set in Union Public Service Commission v. Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela, reinforcing the need for merit-based and transparent recruitment in public employment.

Final Verdict: Compensation Upheld

The Delhi High Court dismissed the hospital’s petition and upheld the labor court’s award of Rs. 70,000 in compensation to Sangeeta. The judgment reinforces the principle that employers must maintain proper records and cannot shirk their responsibilities through outsourcing claims.

Conclusion: A Win for Workers’ Rights and Legal Accountability

The Delhi High Court’s judgment is a significant milestone in upholding the rights of contractual and daily wage workers in India. By shifting the burden of proof to the employer after sworn employee testimony, the court has reinforced accountability under the Industrial Disputes Act. It also sends a clear message that outsourcing arrangements cannot be used as a shield to deny rightful compensation or benefits.

This case serves as a precedent for similar labor disputes, especially where continuous service and minimum wage violations are in question. Employers must ensure compliance with employment laws and maintain transparent documentation, while workers can feel more empowered to assert their rights through legal channels.