Delhi District Court
Jitender Singh vs M/S Aggarwal Beverages on 30 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. ARUN KUMAR GARG
PRESIDING OFFICER : LABOUR COURT-III
ROUSE AVENUE COURTS COMPLEX : NEW DELHI.
CNR No. DLCT13-001240-2018
Ref. No. F.3(63)/18/Ref./WD/Lab./207 dated 05.04.2018
LIR No. 814/2018
Sh. Jitender Singh S/o Late Sh. Balbir Singh,
Mobile No. 8368128985
R/o 266/11, 2nd Floor, D-6, Sector-6,
Rohini, New Delhi-110085.
Through:
Sh. Girja Prasad Singh, General Secretary,
Bhartiya Kranti Iron & Steel Mazdoor Sabha (Regd. 4779),
T-248, Mangol Puri,
Delhi-110083
Mobile No. 9811880564
Through:
Sh. Ajit Kumar Singh, Advocate,
Chamber No. B-61, BGS Block,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
Mobile No. 9811619336
Email- [email protected] ..... Workman
VERSUS
M/s. Aggarwal Beverages
Through its Partners:
Sh. Rajat Jain & Sh. Sanjeev Aggarwal,
Plot No. F-2-17/06, Ranjeet Vihar,
Village Nilothi, Delhi-110041
Through:
Sh. Bhuwan Bhatia,
Authorized Representative of Management,
Address: C-61, Tagore Garden Extension,
Mobile No. 95820-34921
Aadhar No. 2214-0982-3296
LIR No. 814/2018
Jitender Singh Vs. M/s. Aggarwal Beverages
Award dated 30.03.2026 Page 1 of 20
Email Address of the Management:
[email protected] ..... Management
Date of Institution of the case : 09.04.2018
Date on which Award is passed : 30.03.2026
AWARD
1.By this award, I will dispose off the present claim filed by Workman pursuant to reference under Section 10(1)(C) & 12(5) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, received from the office of Joint Labour Commissioner (West), Labour Department, Govt.
of NCT of Delhi vide order reference no.
F.3(63)/18/Ref./WD/Lab./207 dated 05.04.2018, whereby, the following issue has been referred to this Court for adjudication:-
"Whether the Workman Sh. Jitender Singh S/o Sh. Balbir Singh absented from his duty w.e.f.
02.11.2017 or his services have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the Management; and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"
2. Present statement of claim was filed by Workman on 26.07.2019 alleging inter alia that he had been continuously working with Management as a Salesman-cum-Driver since last about ten years, until, his services were illegally terminated by Management on 02.11.2017 without any show cause notice/due process of law or inquiry, annoyed by his demand for legal benefits. During hearing on his complaint/claim dated 06.11.2017 before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, according to him, on 18.01.2018, Management was directed to take him back on duty. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, according to him, he had visited the establishment of LIR No. 814/2018 Jitender Singh Vs. M/s. Aggarwal Beverages Award dated 30.03.2026 Page 2 of 20 Management on 19.01.2018, 20.01.2018 and 21.01.2018, however, Management did not allow him to resume his duties. On 21.01.2018, according to him, Management had tried to pressurize him to withdraw his complaint/claim from the office of Assistant Labour Commissioner, Karampura, by threatening to kill him, whereafter, he lodged a police complaint with SHO, PS Nihal Vihar vide DD No. 35-B dated 21.01.2018. Workman has thus prayed for his reinstatement into the job of Management with full back wages, continuity of services and other consequential benefits, while, alleging himself to be wholly unemployed since the date of illegal termination of his services by Management.
3. Management appeared in response to notice of statement of claim and filed its written statement on 12.12.2019. In its written statement, Management has denied the claim of Workman that he had been working with Management as a Salesman-cum-Driver since last about ten years. Rather, according to Management, Management had been running its business only since 08.04.2016, wherein, Workman was appointed by Management on 01.06.2016 against payment of wages which were more than the Minimum Wages notified by the competent authority. As per record of Management, it is submitted, Workman had lastly attended his duties with Management on 31.10.2017 and had again resumed his duties for a period of three days in the month of January 2018 as per the order of Assistant Labour Commissioner, Karampura, New Delhi. Management has denied having terminated the services of Workman on 02.11.2017 or that it had ever threatened to kill the Workman on 21.01.2018, LIR No. 814/2018 Jitender Singh Vs. M/s. Aggarwal Beverages Award dated 30.03.2026 Page 3 of 20 while, pressurizing him to withdraw his claim from the office of Assistant Labour Commissioner, Karampura. It is further the case of Management as per its written statement that during his employment with Management, Workman had embezzled a sum of Rs. 90,649/- which was duly acknowledged by him on 24.08.2017. Management has thus prayed for dismissal of present claim of Workman on the ground that during his employment with Management, all statutory facilities including ESI and EPF were being provided by Management to Workman and that Workman has been working M/s. Rimpy Cold Drink, Shop No. 3, Himgiri Enclave, Chander Vihar, Delhi-110041.
4. A rejoinder to the aforesaid written statement was filed by Workman on 12.12.2019, wherein, he has once again reiterated the averments made by him in his statement of claim and has denied the contrary averments made by management in its written statement.
5. Thereafter, on the basis of pleadings of parties, following issues were settled by Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 01.02.2020:
(i) Whether the Claimant had worked with the Management for a period of 10 years till 01.11.2017 or that the Workman had worked with the Management for a period of 240 days prior to the termination of his services by the Management on dated 02.11.2017?OPW
(ii) Whether the services of the Claimant were terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the Management? OPW
(iii) Whether the Claimant had committed embezzlement in the Management of Rs. 90,649/-?LIR No. 814/2018
Jitender Singh Vs. M/s. Aggarwal Beverages Award dated 30.03.2026 Page 4 of 20 OPM
(iv) Relief.
6. Workman has thereafter examined himself as WW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.WW1/A along with following documents:
(i) Ex.WW1/1 (colly): Certified copy of documents filed before the Conciliation officer, Karampura, New Delhi.
(ii) Ex.WW1/2: Copy of his driving license.
(iii) Mark-WW1/3: Copy of his ESI card.
(iv) Mark-WW1/4: Copy of EPF details of Workman.
(v) Mark-A (colly): Copy of salary sheets.
(vi) Mark-B (colly): Copy of tax invoices.
7. Workman was duly cross-examined by Ld. AR for Management. Though, Workman had also filed the affidavits of two more witnesses namely Sh. Satnam Singh and Sh. Gyan Chand Sharma which were tendered in evidence on behalf of Workman on 06.10.2021, however, Workman has failed to ensure the presence of aforesaid witnesses for their cross-
examination and hence, has closed his evidence on 29.03.2023 on the ground that he had been unable to secure the presence of the aforesaid witnesses.
8. Management has thereafter examined its Assistant Manager Sh. Bhuwan Bhatia as MW-1 i.e. as the sole witness in support of its case. MW-1 has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. MW1/A along with following documents:
(i) Ex.MW1/1: Authorization letter in favour of LIR No. 814/2018 Jitender Singh Vs. M/s. Aggarwal Beverages Award dated 30.03.2026 Page 5 of 20 MW-1.
(ii) Ex.MW1/2: Copy of statement of earnings and deductions of Workman during the period from April 2017 to March 2018 signed by the then AR of Management Mr. Nitin Jain.
(iii) Ex.MW1/3: Copy of complaint dated 21.03.2018 lodged by earlier Manager Mr. Nitin Jain against Workman with SHO, PS Nihal Vihar, Delhi-110041 vide DD Entry No. 33-B dated 22.03.2018.
(iv) Mark-MW1/4: Document dated 24.08.2017 regarding embezzlement of sum of Rs. 90,649/- by Workman.
(v) Ex.MW1/5: Copy of affidavit-cum-certificate under Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in support of Ex.MW1/2.
9. MW-1 was duly cross-examined by Ld. AR for Workman. No other witness was examined on behalf of Management despite repeated opportunities and opportunity of Management to lead any further evidence in support of its case was closed vide order dated 10.03.2026.
10. Final arguments on behalf of Workman were thereafter heard on 27.03.2026, whereas, written arguments were filed on behalf of Management by its Manager while submitting that the Court may dispose off the present case on the basis of the aforesaid written arguments, in as much as, Management does not wish to advance any oral arguments in the matter.
11. It is submitted by Ld. AR for Workman that Workman has been able to prove himself to be in employment of Management as a Driver-cum-Salesman for a continuous period of about ten years until his services were illegally terminated by Management LIR No. 814/2018 Jitender Singh Vs. M/s. Aggarwal Beverages Award dated 30.03.2026 Page 6 of 20 on 02.11.2017, not only, by way of his uncontroverted testimony in the form of affidavit Ex. WW1/A, but also, through various facts elicited during cross-examination of MW-1. He submits that though Management has tried to dispute the length of employment of Workman with Management, however, Management has failed to produce the record of its employees for the period during which the Workman had been in employment of Management.
12. He submits that the Workman was unable to produce his appointment letter as a proof of his employment with Management since the Management did not have a practice of issuance of any appointment letter to its employees, which, is apparent from the admission of MW-1 during his cross- examination that no appointment letter was issued by Management even in the name of MW-1. He submits that Management was unable to prove the averments made in its written statement by leading any cogent evidence, in as much as, MW-1 i.e. the sole witness examined on behalf of Management in its evidence has failed to produce any letter issued by Management authorizing him to dispose on behalf of Management.
13. He submits that Management has failed to produce the attendance register of its employees to prove that the Workman himself had stopped reporting on his duty after 31.10.2017. He submits that though, during his cross-examination dated 10.03.2026, MW-1 has tried to take a plea that a show cause notice was issued by the Management to the Workman requiring him to resume his duties with Management after he had allegedly LIR No. 814/2018 Jitender Singh Vs. M/s. Aggarwal Beverages Award dated 30.03.2026 Page 7 of 20 stopped reporting on his duty with Management, however, admittedly no copy of any show cause notice has been placed on record by Management.
14. Further, according to him, Management has admittedly removed the name of Workman from its muster roll in the month of October 2017 itself without any notice to the Workman. The aforesaid fact, according to him, is sufficient to falsify the claim of Management that Workman himself had left the job of Management. Under the aforesaid circumstances, according to him, since the workman has not only been able to prove illegal termination of his services by Management on 02.11.2017, but also, that he is wholly unemployed since the date of illegal termination of his services by Management, he is entitled to all the reliefs prayed for by him in his statement of claim.
15. On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of Management that the case of Workman before this Court is fraught with contradictions, in as much as, though in his statement of claim, he had alleged himself to be in employment of Management for a continuous period of about ten years prior to alleged termination of his services, however, in his rejoinder to the written statement of Management, he had tried to take a contradictory plea to the effect that he had joined the sister concern of Management in the year 2010. He submits that the documents Ex.WW1/1(colly), relied upon by the Workman himself, are sufficient to disprove his case, in as much as, the same contains a copy of an acknowledgment dated 24.08.2017, under the signatures of Workman, qua embezzlement by him of Rs. 90,649/- belonging to the Management.
LIR No. 814/2018Jitender Singh Vs. M/s. Aggarwal Beverages Award dated 30.03.2026 Page 8 of 20
16. Further, it is submitted on behalf of Management that as per the ESI and EPF record of Workman, which forms part of documents Ex.WW1/1 (colly), Workman had joined the services of Management only on 01.06.2016, meaning thereby, he had served the Management for a little over one year as against his plea in the statement of claim qua his continuous employment with Management for a period of about ten years. It is further submitted that a bare perusal of the aforesaid documents also shows that Management has already cleared the entire dues of the Workman towards his salary, for the period, he had been in employment of Management.
17. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances, according to Management, Management has been able to falsify the claim of Workman qua his continuous employment with Management for a period of about ten years and that he was not being provided with any statutory facilities, in as much as, the Workman was admittedly being provided with ESI and EPF benefits besides, the payment of salary at the rate which was more than the prescribed Minimum Wages. The very fact that the Management had offered reinstatement of Workman, during the pendency of proceedings before Conciliation Officer, according to Management, indicates that the services of Workman were never terminated by Management and rather, it was the Workman who had himself left the services of Management.
18. Management has thus prayed for dismissal of present claim of Workman, while, simultaneously alleging that the reinstatement of the Workman into the job of Management is not possible in view of admitted case of Workman that the LIR No. 814/2018 Jitender Singh Vs. M/s. Aggarwal Beverages Award dated 30.03.2026 Page 9 of 20 Management has already closed its operations during Covid-19.
19. I have carefully gone through the submissions made on behalf of both the parties, besides, the entire material available on record. My issue-wise findings, on the issues settled by Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order date 01.02.2020, are as follows:
Issue no. (i): Whether the Claimant had worked with the Management for a period of 10 years till 01.11.2017 or that the Workman had worked with the Management for a period of 240 days prior to the termination of his services by the Management on dated 02.11.2017? OPW
20. Onus to prove the first part of the aforesaid issue was upon Workman, whereas, second part of the aforesaid issue i.e. whether the Workman had worked with Management for a period of 240 days prior to termination of his services by Management does not arise out of the pleadings of parties. A bare perusal of the statement of claim of Workman shows that the Workman has vaguely alleged therein that he had been working with Management as a Driver-cum-Salesman with effect from the period of about ten years prior to his termination, without disclosing the date, month or year of his joining the Management. It was only after the Management has denied the aforesaid claim of Workman in its written statement, while, alleging that Management had started its business w.e.f. 08.04.2016 and subsequently appointed the Workman on 01.06.2016, that the Workman in his rejoinder has tried to take a plea that he had joined the sister concern of Management namely M/s. North Delhi Beverages Pvt. Ltd. in the year 2010.
LIR No. 814/2018Jitender Singh Vs. M/s. Aggarwal Beverages Award dated 30.03.2026 Page 10 of 20
21. The aforesaid plea of Workman in his rejoinder is contrary to the plea of Workman in his statement of claim. Workman has failed to produce any document, during his evidence, to prove that he had been in employment of Management for a period of about ten years. On the contrary, a bare perusal of copy of his ESI card Mark-WW1/3 shows that in the aforesaid ESI card, the date of his joining the Management has been mentioned as 01.06.2016. Same is the case with copy of pay slips for the months of June 2017 and July 2017, relied upon by the Workman, wherein, the date of his joining has been mentioned as 01.06.2016.
22. In fact, a bare perusal of the alleged surety bond dated 04.07.2009 and the inter office memos of the year 2010, relied upon by Workman himself, shows that the same are purportedly belonging to M/s. D.N. Kapoor & Associates and M/s. North Delhi Beverages Pvt. Ltd. about which there is no whisper in the statement of claim filed by Workman. Though, in his rejoinder to written statement of Management, Workman has tried to take a plea that he had joined the sister concern of Management namely M/s. North Delhi Beverages Pvt. Ltd. in the year 2010, however, he has failed to produce any document on record to prove any connection between M/s. North Delhi Beverages Pvt. Ltd. and the present Management M/s. Aggarwal Beverages.
23. Thus, even if, it is assumed for the sake of arguments that Mr. Bhuwan Bhatia had not been duly authorized by the Management to depose on behalf of Management and hence, his testimony is liable to be discarded by the Court, Management has been able to falsify the claim of Workman qua length of his LIR No. 814/2018 Jitender Singh Vs. M/s. Aggarwal Beverages Award dated 30.03.2026 Page 11 of 20 employment with Management, from the own documents of Workman. The first part of issue no. (i) is accordingly decided against the Workman, while, holding that he had not been able to prove having been in employment of Management for about a period of ten years.
24. So far as the second part of the aforesaid issue is concerned, the same is hereby deleted being beyond pleadings of parties.
Issue no. (iii): Whether the Claimant had committed embezzlement in the Management of Rs. 90,649/-? OPM
25. No doubt, Management, in its written statement, has alleged that a sum of Rs. 90,649/- belonging to Management was embezzled by Workman during his employment with Management which was admitted by him vide a document dated 24.08.2017, however, it is relevant to note in this regard that the present claim seeking his reinstatement into the job of Management has been filed on behalf of Workman pursuant to a reference order dated 05.04.2018 under the provisions of Section 10(1)(c) and 12(5) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Terms of the aforesaid reference includes adjudication of the issue as to whether the Workman had absented from his duties w.e.f. 02.11.2017 or his services had been terminated by the Management illegally and/or unjustifiably.
26. The aforesaid plea of Management, qua embezzlement of Rs. 90,649/- by the Workman and the aforesaid issue no. (iii) settled vide order dated 01.02.2020, are thus beyond the terms of reference dated 05.04.2018 received by this Court. It is settled legal position that while adjudicating a claim, filed pursuant to LIR No. 814/2018 Jitender Singh Vs. M/s. Aggarwal Beverages Award dated 30.03.2026 Page 12 of 20 reference under Section 10(1)(c) and 12(5) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Labour Court is bound by the terms of reference and hence, can't go beyond the terms of reference.
27. Issue no. (iii) is thus liable to be deleted and is hereby deleted.
Issue no. (ii): Whether the services of the Claimant were terminated illegally and / or unjustifiably by the Management? OPW
28. Onus to prove the aforesaid issues was upon Workman. As has already been observed herein above, Workman has alleged illegal termination of his services by Management on 02.11.2017, annoyed by his demand for various legal benefits. On the other hand, Management, in its written statement, has evasively denied the aforesaid fact, while, alleging that the last attendance of the Workman was marked on 31.10.2017, where after, he has again joined the Management for a period of three days in the month of January 2018 as per the order of Assistant Labour Commissioner, Karampura.
29. There is no whisper in the entire written statement of Management about the fact as to what had happened after 31.10.2017, meaning thereby, whether the Workman himself had stopped attending his duties or the Management had terminated the services of Workman. The written statement of Management filed before this Court is also conspicuously silent about the fact about the steps, if any, taken by Management, in case, Workman himself had stopped reporting on his duty with Management after 31.10.2017.
LIR No. 814/2018Jitender Singh Vs. M/s. Aggarwal Beverages Award dated 30.03.2026 Page 13 of 20
30. The plea of Management regarding the last working day of Workman with Management being 31.10.2017 stands contradicted by the own complaint dated 21.03.2018 Ex.MW1/3 of Management addressed to SHO, PS Nihar Vihar, Delhi, wherein, it had been alleged that in the evening of 23.10.2017, the Workman had again reported back on his duty and had run away without giving any collection of money or report of sold products/goods after parking vehicle no. DL-1LX-4558 in the Management company.
31. Thus, though as per the terms of reference, this Court is required to adjudicate as to whether the Workman himself had absented from his duty w.e.f. 02.11.2017, however, there are no pleadings of the Management to the aforesaid effect in the written statement filed on behalf of Management on 12.12.2019. Rather, as has already been observed herein above, the aforesaid plea of Management before the Conciliation Officer, if any, stands contradicted by the plea of Management in its complaint dated 21.03.2018 to SHO, PS Nihar Vihar.
32. A bare perusal of record reveals that the Management has admittedly submitted a reply to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Karampura during pendency of conciliation proceedings, wherein, it was alleged by the Management that after 2nd November 2017, Workman had stopped coming on his duty and switched off his phone and though, the Management had tried to contact him to call back on job and also to return the money embezzled by him but the Workman refused to pay fraudulent amount of Rs. 90,649/- while extending threat to the Management to approach the Labour Court in order to extort LIR No. 814/2018 Jitender Singh Vs. M/s. Aggarwal Beverages Award dated 30.03.2026 Page 14 of 20 money compensation from the Management on false grounds.
33. As has already been observed herein above, the aforesaid plea of Management in its reply to the Assistant Labour Commissioner is contradictory to the stand of Management in its written statement that last working day of Workman with the Management was 31.10.2017. Had there been any truth in the plea of Management before the Conciliation Officer that Workman had stopped reporting on his duty after 02.11.2017, Management would have definitely served a show cause notice upon Workman requiring him to resume his duties with Management. In fact, though, during his cross-examination, MW-1 has deposed that a show cause notice, requiring the Workman to report back on his duty with Management was issued by Management to Workman after the Workman had stopped reporting on his duty, however, no copy of the aforesaid show cause notice or proof of dispatch/delivery thereof to Workman has been placed on record by Management.
34. Further, during his cross-examination, MW-1 has deposed that Management had removed the name of Workman from the record of its employees in the month of October 2017 itself, that too, without any show cause notice/intimation to Workman. The aforesaid plea of MW-1 is sufficient to falsify the claim of management before the Conciliation officer that Workman himself had stopped reporting on his duty with Management after 02.11.2017.
35. Even otherwise, it is settled legal position that in case, the employer treats the unauthorized absence of a Workman from his LIR No. 814/2018 Jitender Singh Vs. M/s. Aggarwal Beverages Award dated 30.03.2026 Page 15 of 20 duty as misconduct, so as to justify removal of his name from the record of its employees, Employer is required to serve a show cause notice upon the Workman and to conduct an inquiry about the reasons for such unauthorized absence, prior to his removal from the service on the aforesaid ground. However, in the case in hand, admittedly, no inquiry into the aforesaid alleged conduct of Workman in absenting himself from his duties was conducted by Management.
36. On the other hand, immediately upon alleged termination of his services, Workman has served a demand notice dated 06.11.2017 upon the Management, challenging illegal termination of his services and seeking his reinstatement into the job of Management. The receipt of aforesaid demand notice by the Management was duly admitted by MW-1 during his cross- examination. It is not even the case of Management that Management had ever responded to the aforesaid demand notice of Workman. Had there been any truth in the claim of Management, qua alleged abandonment of his duties by Workman, Management would have immediately responded to the aforesaid demand notice disputing the claim of Workman qua termination of his services. The omission on the part of Management in responding to the aforesaid demand notice also falsifies its claim that Workman had failed to resume his duties with Management despite repeated calls of the Management.
37. On the contrary, conduct of Workman in simultaneously filing a complaint/claim before the concerned Labour Commissioner on 08.11.2017 and in filing a statement of claim dated 10.01.2018 before the Conciliation Officer indicates that LIR No. 814/2018 Jitender Singh Vs. M/s. Aggarwal Beverages Award dated 30.03.2026 Page 16 of 20 he had never abandoned his services with Management. No doubt, in its reply to the claim of Workman before Conciliation Officer, Management had tried to take a plea that the services of Workman were never terminated by Management and it was the Workman who, after 02.11.2017, on his own, had been unauthorizedly absenting himself from his duties, however, pusuant to the directions of Asst. Labour Commissioner, Workman had immdediately reported back on his duty with Management on 19.01.2018, 20.01.2018 and 21.01.2018.
38. On 21.01.2018, according to Workman, Management had tried to pressurize the Workman to withdraw his claim from the office of Assistant Labour Commissioner, Karampura while threatening to kill him. Entire written statement of Management is, however, conspicuously silent about what had happened after 21.01.2018 i.e. whether the Workman himself had stopped reporting on his duty or he was not allowed by the Management to resume his duties with Management.
39. On the contrary, in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.WW1/A, Workman has once again categorically deposed that his services were illegally terminated by Management on 02.11.2017 annoyed by his demand for few service benefits. The aforesaid testimony of Workman has remained largely uncontroverted, in as much as, despite his lengthy cross- examination by Ld. AR of Management, nothing material could be elicited from Workman which shall have the effect of casting any doubt about the veracity of his deposition.
40. Ld. AR for Management has tried to rely upon the LIR No. 814/2018 Jitender Singh Vs. M/s. Aggarwal Beverages Award dated 30.03.2026 Page 17 of 20 contradictions in the stand of Workman qua length of his employment with Management so as to raise suspicion about the veracity of deposition of Workman in his affidavit Ex.WW1/A, however, in my considered opinion, the aforesaid contradiction in the plea of Workman is not sufficient to discard his entire testimony as unworthy of credit, in as much as, length of service of Workman with the Management is not a fact material to determine the most important issue before the Court i.e. whether services of Workman were terminated by Management on 02.11.2017 illegally and/or unauthorizedly in violation of provisions of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
41. Considering the fact that the Workman was admittedly in employment of Management at least since 01.06.2016 and his services were terminated by Management on 02.11.2017, without any show cause notice/domestic inquiry or payment of service compensation, in my considered opinion, termination of services of Workman by Management is absolutely illegal being in violation of provisions of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which are attracted in view of admitted position that Workman had been in continuous employment of Management for a period of more than one year as on the date of termination of his services by Management.
42. Issue no. (ii) is thus decided in favour of Workman.
Issue no. (iv): Relief?
43. In view of my findings on issue no. (ii) herein above, since the Workman has been able to prove illegal termination of his services by Management, but for his admission to the effect that LIR No. 814/2018 Jitender Singh Vs. M/s. Aggarwal Beverages Award dated 30.03.2026 Page 18 of 20 Management has already closed its operations during Covid-19, Workman would have been entitled to his reinstatement into the job of Management. However, since admittedly Management has already closed down its operations and earlier reinstatement of Workman by the Management pursuant to directions of Asst. Labour Commissioner had led to police complaints by both the parties against each other, the relief of reinstatement of Workman into the services of Management can't be granted to the Workman.
44. So far as the relief of back wages is concerned, in my considered opinion, the same can also not be granted to the Workman in view of uncontroverted testimony of MW-1 in para 8 of his affidavit that after his separation with Management, Workman had been working with Mr. Rimpy Cold Drinks.
45. Thus, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, wherein, services of Workman were illegally terminated by Management without any notice/notice pay or service compensation, after he had served the Management for over a period of one year 5 months, in my considered opinion, ends of justice would be served by awarding a lump sum compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) in favour of Workman to be paid by Management in lieu of his reinstatement, back wages, notice pay, service compensation and litigation cost, within a period of 15 days from the date of publication of this award, failing which, Management shall pay the aforesaid amount to Workman along with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this award until payment of the award amount.
LIR No. 814/2018Jitender Singh Vs. M/s. Aggarwal Beverages Award dated 30.03.2026 Page 19 of 20
46. Present claim of Workman is thus partly allowed and reference dated 05.04.2018 is answered in the following terms:
"Management has failed to prove that Workman Sh. Jitender Singh S/o Late Sh. Balbir Singh had absented from his duties with Management w.e.f. 02.11.2017 on his own, whereas, Workman has been able to prove illegal termination of his services by Management on 02.11.2017. Management is thus directed to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) to Workman, in lieu of his reinstatement, back wages, notice pay, service compensation and litigation cost, within a period of 15 days from the date of publication of this award, failing which, Management shall pay the aforesaid amount to Workman along with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this award until payment of the award amount ."
47. Ordered accordingly.
48. Requisite number of copies of this award be sent to the competent authority for publication as per rules.
Announced in the open Court on this 30th day of March, 2026. This award consists of 20 number of signed pages. ARUN Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR GARG KUMAR Date:
GARG 2026.03.30
15:39:33 +0530
(ARUN KUMAR GARG)
Presiding Officer Labour Court-III
Rouse Avenue Court, New Delhi
LIR No. 814/2018
Jitender Singh Vs. M/s. Aggarwal Beverages Award dated 30.03.2026 Page 20 of 20