Burden To Prove 'Workman' Status Lies On Complainant Union Not Employer: SC

The Supreme Court clarified that in industrial disputes, the burden of proving an employee qualifies as a 'workman' rests entirely on the party asserting that status, typically the complainant union, rather than the employer.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma heard the appeals filed by Bonatrans India (Pvt.) Ltd. against a High Court order that had inadvertently misframed a preliminary issue regarding the legal status of employees. The Court emphasized that while procedural laws like the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 or the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 do not strictly apply to industrial adjudications, the fundamental principle of 'he who asserts must prove' remains a cardinal rule of evidence.

The Core Conflict: Phrasing of Preliminary Issues

The dispute emerged from a complaint filed under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 by the respondent Union. The employer challenged the maintainability of the complaint, arguing the employees were not 'workmen' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. While the High Court directed the Industrial Court to frame this as a preliminary issue, the phrasing in the impugned order suggested the employer carried the burden of proof. The Supreme Court noted that this was an inadvertent lapse in phrasing rather than a misunderstanding of law.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Ei incumbit probation qui dicit, non qui negat translates to ‘the burden of proof lies on the one who asserts, not on the one who denies’. Section 104 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (former Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872) embodies this principle by ordaining on whom the burden of proof lies... if in course of adjudication of a complaint under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 the management as a point of demurrer either denies the employer-employee relationship or disputes the status of an employee contending that he is not a workman, the burden would be on the complainant to prove the relationship or the status."

Court Directions on Timelines and Disciplinary Enquiries

The Court modified the issue to correctly place the burden on the Union and set a strict timeline for the proceedings. The Court has the following directions:

"(i) The Union will commence the recording of oral and documentary evidence on the issue, formulated in paragraph ‘11’ (supra) on 18th May, 2026. Recording of oral and documentary evidence before the Industrial Court shall be completed within a month, i.e., by 17th June, 2026.

(ii) The employer shall conclude the recording of its evidence within a month thereafter (i.e., within a month from 17th June, 2026).

(iii) The Industrial Court will thereafter fix dates for hearing the oral arguments of the parties, subject to its convenience.

(iv) The Industrial Court is encouraged to pronounce its decision on the preliminary issue as early as possible thereafter, but within 31st October, 2026 without fail.

(v) The parties shall co-operate and render adequate assistance to the Industrial Court and shall not seek undue adjournments."

Background:

The litigation began when the Bonatrans Employees Union filed a complaint alleging unfair labour practices and challenging disciplinary proceedings. The employer, Bonatrans India Pvt. Ltd., objected via Exhibit C/8, asserting that the employees did not meet the definition of 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Industrial Court initially refused to frame this as a preliminary issue, leading to a challenge in the High Court. The High Court eventually ordered the issue to be tried first but phrased it in a way that appeared to shift the burden of proof to the employer. The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, correcting the phrasing of the issue and allowing the employer to conclude disciplinary enquiries, though final orders remain subject to the outcome of the preliminary issue regarding the employees' status.

Case Details:
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL Nos. ……………./2026 (SLP (C) Nos. 6961-6962/2022)
NeutralCitation: 2026 INSC 445
Case Title: BONATRANS INDIA (PVT.) LTD. VERSUS BONATRANS EMPLOYEES UNION
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr Sudhir K Talsania, Senior Counsel

Source: 2026 CaseBase(SC) 559