Termination Without Notice :An Indepth Analysis Of Ashok Singh Tomar Vs Forest Ranger

Introduction

This case revolves around a petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court ,by a person who claims that he was employed by the Madhya Pradesh Forest Department as a security guard in Soi Beat region .He claims that he worked for 240 days ,but he was removed from service without any reason orally ,no chance was given to hear his side .He claims that the petition was arbitrary and violated section 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947.The labour court decided that he was not an employee of the forest department and there was no proof of employment of him by the forest department .The petitioner went for appeal before the high court challenging the labour court's decision ,but the high court found the labour court's decision was correct and dismissed the appeal.

Name of the case : Ashok Singh Tomar vs Forest Ranger and Others¹

Background of the Case:

The petitioner in this case said that he was employed as a security guard on 16. 07. 2011 by the Madhya Pradesh Forest Department and was posted for work at village - Soi Beat. He said he was assigned plantation work in that village. He said that he worked there from 16. 07. 2011 to 01. 06. 2014 in the Soi Beat and his presence was marked by a beat guard named Makarand Singh Narwariya on a muster roll. He said that his salary was paid by Deputy Ranger Shri Nathu Singh Bhadoria. Afterwards his service was terminated orally on 01. 06. 2014 by beat guard Makarand Singh Narwariya and before his termination no show cause notice was issued or no chance was given to hear his side , as he for more than 240 days in a calender year. The department did not give him a one month notice neither paid him salary ,the petitioner alleges that these actions were violating section 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner submitted an application under section 2 and 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and there after the reference was forwarded to Labour Court No. 2 Gwalior for Adjudication. The labour heard the statements of the petitioner and respondent. The court found that the forest department never hired the petitioner and there was no proof of employment of the petitioner . A review petition was filed by the petitioner, but it was dismissed on grounds of maintainability. This led to the petition before high court under article 226 of the Indian constitution.

Legal Issues Involved:

1. Whether there is a employee and employer relationship between the petitioner and the forest department?
2. Whether the termination of the petitioner was arbitrary and violating section 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act?
3. Whether adverse inference can be drawn against the employers in this case to produce proofs?

4.Whether the petitioner should be reinstated to the job with backwages?

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner (SECURITY GAURD):

1. The petitioner contended that he was terminated by the beat ranger by an oral order dated 01.06.2014.He contended that no show cause notice was issued to him before his termination and he was not given a chance to be heard .
2. He contended that these actions are arbitrary and violated the section 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act .So he should be reinstated to work ,with back -wages.
3. He also contended that identity card issued by the employer is the proof of the employment and also the employer should also submit the log books to the court as an evidence of his employment.
4. The petitioner also contended that the order given by the Labour Court is contrary to the section 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act. He contended that the Labour Court has not drawn adverse inference against the employer.

Respondents ( FOREST RANGER AND THE FOREST SOCIETY):

1. The respondent no.1 forest ranger contends that the petioner was never an employee of the forest department . They contended that the petitioner was hired by forest security society which is a private entity .There is no relation between the department and the forest security society.
2. The respondent no.2 contended that the petitioner was never hired by them ,because there is authority to any to hire employees in the society. They also contended that the petitioner could not provide evidence to prove his employment. Both the respondents contended that the petitioner had alternbative ways to resolve his issue but he choose to file writ petition before the high court.
3. So both the respondents contended that the appeal should be dismissed.

Judgment:

The Madhya Pradesh high court upheld the decision of the Labour court no.2 Gwalior and held that the employee himself cannot establish the proof that he was employed by the respondents . The identity card provided by the petitioner cannot be taken as proof of employment because it does not have any signature or stamp by the forest department. The labour court righteously rejected the review petition. So the appeal is dismissed.

Observation by the court:

1. The court observed that the burden of proof lies on the claimant to prove that he was employed by the forest department.in this case the petitioner himself cannot provide any evidence for his employment. So adverse inference cannot be drawn against the respondent.
2. The court also observed the forest society is formed by state government so the Industrial Disputes Act is applicable to the society .
3. The petitioner could not provide any appointment letter or any proof of his employment .So there is no violation of the section 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act .The appeal stands to be dismissed.

Conclusion:

This case tells us how courts rule based on merit of evidence. We can get to know that how evidence plays an important role in deciding cases . The court in this case ruled in the favor of the respondents because the petitioner could not provide sufficient evidence to the court to prove his employment. From this case we can know that how complex government institutions and societies are .The court decided the case based on precedents.

References:

1. Filing of affidavits or self serving documents are not sufficient to prove employer – employee relationship by Pranav Kumar . Available at https://www.livelaw.in/labour-service/filing-of-affidavits-self-serving-documents-insufficient-to-prove-employer-employee-relationship-mp-hc-278416.
2. Adverse inference cannot be drawn against employer when the employee himself primarily cannot establish proof of employment by Riya Rathore . Available at https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/madhya-pradesh-high-court-ashok-singh-tomar-v-forest-rang-officer-adverse-
   inference-cannot-be-drawn-against-employer-1562434 - :~:text=Madhya%20Pradesh%20HC-,Adverse%20Inference%
   20Cannot%20Be%20Drawn%20Against%20Employer%20When%20Employee%20Himself,Establish%20Employment%3
   A%20Madhya%20Pradesh%20HC&text=The%20Madhya%20Pradesh%20High%20Court,that%20he%20was%20in%20employment.

Footnote

1. Ashok Singh Tomar vs Forest Ranger and others

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.