Case Details: Paramjeet Singh vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. [2026] 185 taxmann.com 276 (Delhi)[30-03-2026]
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.
-
Karan Luthra & Shiven Asthana, Advs. for the Petitioner.
-
Sandeep Prabhakar, Sr. Adv. & Vikas Mehta, Adv. for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
In the instant case, the workman, Paramjeet Singh, claimed that he was employed as a driver from 14.12.2003 to 31.05.2012 and that his services were illegally terminated on 01.06.2012 after he demanded statutory benefits. He filed a claim against both the principal employer (BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.) and the contractor. He relied on two identity cards issued by the contractor and a vehicle log slip to support his claim. However, BSES denied any employer–employee relationship with him, while the contractor admitted that he was its employee but stated that he had left the job on 19.05.2012 and had not completed 240 days of continuous service in the preceding year.
The Labour Court examined the facts and found that Paramjeet Singh failed to prove continuous service of 240 days, as required under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The identity cards produced were not sufficient evidence, and there was a clear break in service, he stopped working after 30.04.2011 and rejoined only on 02.11.2011 before finally working till 19.05.2012. Importantly, he did not file any response to challenge the contractor’s version that he had voluntarily left the job. Based on these findings, the Labour Court dismissed his claim.
High Court Held
On appeal, the High Court of Delhi upheld the Labour Court’s decision. The Court noted that Paramjeet Singh had claimed to be an employee of BSES. Still, there was no evidence to establish such a relationship, especially since the contractor had admitted employment. It further held that in the absence of any allegation that the contract between BSES and the contractor was illegal, the workman could not claim to be an employee of the principal employer. Additionally, since he sought no relief against the contractor, there was no basis to interfere with the Labour Court’s award. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
List of Cases Referred to
- Ram Singh v. Union Territory 2003 taxmann.com 4074 (SC) (para 12)
- Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. Mahendra Prasad Jakhmola [2019] 2 taxmann.com 1932 (SC) (para 13)
- Kirloskar Brothers Limited v. Rancharan [2023] 12 taxmann.com 1375 (SC) (para 14)
- Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan 1963 SCC OnLine SC 24 (para 16).
The post No Claim Against Principal Employer Without Employment Proof | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
