The Rajasthan High Court has clarified a critical procedural principle in industrial disputes: when an employee alleges oral termination without any formal enquiry, the burden to prove that termination rests squarely on the employee. The Labour Court erred by permitting the employer to lead evidence first, undermining the foundational rule of adversarial procedure.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Sanjeev Kumar Sain, was employed by Nimrana Hotels Company Pvt. Ltd. as a security personnel. He alleged that he was orally terminated on or about 15.07.2021 without any notice, show-cause notice, or formal enquiry. The respondent employer denied oral termination and contended that the petitioner had abandoned his services, leading to his removal under a charge-sheet dated 10.06.2021 for abandonment of duty.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was last seen at work on 10.06.2021
- A charge-sheet for abandonment of services was issued on 10.06.2021
- No enquiry was conducted; the charge-sheet was treated as final ex-parte on 15.07.2021
- The petitioner was not given any opportunity to defend himself in the ex-parte proceeding
- The petitioner filed a complaint before the Labour Court on 05.08.2021 alleging illegal oral termination
- The employer’s defence was solely based on abandonment, not on any formal termination order
- No written termination order was ever issued or produced by the employer
Procedural History
- 10.06.2021: Charge-sheet issued by employer for abandonment of services
- 15.07.2021: Charge-sheet treated as final ex-parte; petitioner not heard
- 05.08.2021: Petitioner filed complaint before Labour Court alleging oral termination
- 19.09.2022: Labour Court held that the procedure adopted for termination was unfair, despite no formal enquiry being challenged
- 19.09.2024: Labour Court permitted the employer to lead evidence first, reversing its earlier stance
- 16.12.2023: Writ petition filed before the High Court challenging both orders
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the Labour Court’s orders dated 19.09.2022 and 19.09.2024, and a direction to re-adjudicate the matter by first allowing him to lead evidence on his claim of oral termination, followed by the employer’s defence on abandonment.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether, in a case where the employee alleges oral termination and the employer defends on grounds of abandonment without a valid enquiry, the Labour Court must first require the employee to prove the termination before permitting the employer to lead evidence on its defence.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the Labour Court committed a jurisdictional error by examining the fairness of an enquiry that was never formally challenged. The petitioner’s case was based solely on oral termination, not on the validity of a charge-sheet or enquiry. Therefore, the burden to prove termination lay with the petitioner. Permitting the employer to lead evidence first violated the principle of audi alteram partem and reversed the natural order of proof.
For the Respondent
The employer’s counsel contended that the Labour Court was merely ensuring procedural fairness by allowing the employer to substantiate its claim of abandonment, which was the only plausible explanation for the petitioner’s absence. They argued that the charge-sheet, though ex-parte, formed the factual basis for the employer’s defence and deserved consideration.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the dispute and found that the petitioner’s claim was not that the enquiry was unfair, but that no enquiry occurred at all. The employer’s defence was not that a fair enquiry led to termination, but that the petitioner had abandoned his duties. The Court emphasized that the Labour Court’s role is not to assume the existence of an enquiry where none was conducted.
"It is not a case based on any enquiry. The case set up by the petitioner and the defence set-up by the respondent/employer clearly shows that the action which is under challenge was not based on any enquiry."
The Court held that when an employee alleges oral termination, the initial burden lies on him to establish that termination occurred. Only after the employee makes a prima facie case does the burden shift to the employer to justify the absence or non-continuation of service. The Labour Court’s decision to permit the employer to lead evidence first was a fundamental procedural flaw, as it effectively presumed the existence of a disciplinary process that was never initiated.
The Court further noted that the ex-parte charge-sheet, though issued, was not challenged by the petitioner and therefore could not be the basis for shifting the burden of proof. The Labour Court had no jurisdiction to examine the fairness of an enquiry that was neither pleaded nor contested.
The Verdict
The writ petition was allowed. The Labour Court’s orders dated 19.09.2022 and 19.09.2024 were quashed and set aside. The Labour Court is directed to re-adjudicate the matter by first giving the petitioner an opportunity to lead evidence on his claim of oral termination. Thereafter, the employer shall be permitted to lead evidence in support of its defence of abandonment. The employer may also file a fresh affidavit and place all relevant material in its possession. This entire process must be completed within three months from the date of this order.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Burden of Proof Begins with the Employee
- Practitioners must now ensure that in oral termination cases, the employee’s complaint clearly alleges termination without formal process
- The Labour Court cannot presume the existence of an enquiry unless it is specifically pleaded and challenged
- The initial burden to prove termination always lies with the employee, regardless of the employer’s counter-allegations
No Premature Examination of Unchallenged Enquiries
- Labour Courts must not delve into the fairness of disciplinary proceedings that are not part of the dispute
- If an ex-parte charge-sheet is not challenged, it cannot be used to reframe the nature of the case
- Any attempt by the Labour Court to treat an unchallenged administrative action as the basis for adjudication is a jurisdictional error
Procedural Order Must Be Preserved
- Evidence must be led in the sequence: plaintiff first, then defendant
- Reversing this order undermines the adversarial system and prejudices the claimant
- Practitioners should immediately object if the Labour Court permits the employer to lead evidence before the employee has established a prima facie case
