Delhi District Court
Vikas Gupta vs M/S Living Media India Ltd on 9 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF RITU SINGH,
DISTRICT JUDGE & ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
PRESIDING OFFICER : LABOUR COURT - IV,
ROUSE AVENUE COURTS : NEW DELHI.
LIR No.880/2021
CNR No. DLCT13-001345-2021
Sh. Vikas Gupta
S/o Late Sh. G.S. Gupta
R/o H. No. 850-D/7 Kalkaji
New Delhi 110018
.................claimant
Versus
(1) M/s Living Media India Ltd.
K-9, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001
(2) M/s Living Media India Ltd.
FC-8, Sector-16-A, Film City, Noida- 201301
........Management
Date of Institution : 01.04.2021
Date of Arguments: 22.09.2025
Date of Award : 09.10.2025
Decision : Statement of claim of
the workman dismissed.
LIR No.880/2021
Vikas Gupta Vs M/s Living Media India Ltd. Page No. 1 of 27
AWARD
1) Vide this Award, this Court shall decide the Industrial Dispute
which was referred by Joint Labour Commissioner, Labour
Department, New Delhi District, Employment Exchanage
Building Pusa Campus, New Delhi, on a complaint filed by the
claimant against the Management, vide reference no.
F-24(31)/JLC/NDD/2020/1029 dated 08.06.2020, u/s 10 (1) (c)
and 12 (5) of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, wherein the
following reference was to be answered:-
"Whether Sh. Vikas Gupta S/o Late Sh. G.S.
Gupta has received full and final settlement
amounting of Rs. 5,78,282/- vide cheque no.
000153 dated 08.12.2017 on his own accord 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 regard".
THE CLAIM OF THE claimant
2) Notice of the reference was issued to the claimant and pursuant
thereto, statement of claim was filed by claimant claiming therein
that he had joined the services of management (M/s Living Media
India Ltd.), since 17.07.2000 as Senior Visualiser and he had
lastly worked as Chief Designer and that he was working
Journalist covered within the ambit of Working Journalist &
Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) &
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955.
3) It is further claimed in the claim statement that claimant had
demanded from management implementation of Majithia Wage
LIR No.880/2021
Vikas Gupta Vs M/s Living Media India Ltd. Page No. 2 of 27
Board recommendations and fixation of his salary at the scale of
Chief Designer and payment of arrears of his salary and therefore,
the the management wanted to terminate the services of the
claimant and management had asked him to submit his
resignation. But on his refusal, the management, without his
consent and under threat and coercion had issued him a letter
appointing him as a consultant in management and subsequently,
management had terminated his services w.e.f. 18.03.2018 in
order to avoid payment of wages as per Majithia Wage Board
Award. The claimant has alleged that his termination was
arbitrary, illegal, malafide and unjustified.
4) It is alleged that thereafter, claimant had sent a demand notice to
the management on 04.07.2018 demanding from management his
reinstatement in service with full back wages and all other
consequential benefits. It is alleged in statement of claim of
claimant that since the day of his termination, claimant is
unemployed and could not get any alternative employment
despite his best efforts.
5) It is alleged that claimant had filed present claim before ALC,
Noida vide his statement of claim dated 20.09.2018 and that
management has raised objection that authority at Noida has no
jurisdiction in the matter and that only ALC at Delhi has
jurisdiction and therefore, that statement of claim was withdrawn
from Noida with liberty to file afresh before appropriate forum
having territorial jurisdiction and that present claim was again
instituted at Delhi.
LIR No.880/2021
Vikas Gupta Vs M/s Living Media India Ltd. Page No. 3 of 27
6) By way of the present claim petition, claimant has prayed for
award in his favour, directing the management to reinstate him
with consequential benefits with full back wages.
VERSION OF MANAGEMENT IN ITS REPLY
7) Notice of the statement of claim was duly served on the
management and consequently, the representative of the
management had appeared and had filed its written statement,
wherein the management has stated that the claim of the claimant
is liable to be dismissed on account of lack of jurisdiction and
misrepresentation by the claimant in the claim statement. The
management has further alleged that the claimant has filed the
present case on the basis of a concocted story. The management
has stated in its written statement that relationship between the
claimant and the management was governed by the Fixed-Term
Consultant Agreement dated 08.12.2017 and he was neither an
employee nor claimant at the management's concern and he was
not on the payroll of the Management. It is further asserted that
the nature of employment of claimant was contractual.
8) The management has further alleged in its written statement that
claimant is not a 'claimant' according to ID Act as service of
consultant are not governed under ID Act. It has been stated that
designer is a person who uses creative ability and is therefore not
claimant. It is alleged by the management that the claimant was
working with management as Chief Designer and was the second-
in-command in the department and enjoy supervisory role and
decision making capacity, managing design operations and
LIR No.880/2021
Vikas Gupta Vs M/s Living Media India Ltd. Page No. 4 of 27
allocating work responsibilities to at least 5 junior staff members
under him. It is further stated that the only one person senior to
him was the Creative Director. Management has further alleged
that claimant was initially employed as Senior Visualizer with
World Media Private Ltd since 17.07.2000 and thereafter he was
transferred to the Management Company (M/s Living Media
India Ltd.) vide transfer letter dated 01.10.2003 and on being
transferred, he was issued appointment letter dated 14.10.2003
through which he was appointed on the post of Senior Visualizer
in Business Today and that claimant had continued to work with
the management as Chief Designer till 08.12.2017.
9) The management has further contended in its written statement
that the claimant has voluntarily taken the full and final settlement
amount of Rs. 5,78,282/- by way of vide cheque no. 000153 dated
08.12.2017 on 08.12.2017 and he had accepted Full and Final
Settlement and signed on closure of his employment on
08.12.2017.
10) The management has further contended in its written
statement that present case of the claimant does not falls under the
ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as claimant was
appointed by the management on contractual basis for specific
and fixed period from 08.12.2017 till 31.08.2018 and that since
the tenure of the agreement of the claimant came to end on
31.08.2018 as there was no extension /renewal of his contract of
employment and therefore, there was cessation of employment of
the claimant with the management, with the efflux of time.
LIR No.880/2021
Vikas Gupta Vs M/s Living Media India Ltd. Page No. 5 of 27
11) It has been contended that the claimant was never regular
employee of the management and he has worked for more than 17
years during the period from 17.07.2000 till 08.12.2017. It is
alleged that after cessation of claimant's employment with the
management on 08.12.2017 and he was appointed as Consultant
in management w.e.f. 08.12.2017 and his services were availed
for 15 days in a month against the remuneration to be paid to him
as per terms and conditions of the fixed term consultant
agreement dated 08.12.2017. It is further submitted that the
claimant had voluntary chosen to work as an independent
consultant in management due to the facilities and freedom
provided under the said Agreement and had worked as Consultant
Chief Designer till 31.03.2018.
12) Management has asserted that it had not terminated the
services of the claimant and that temporary contractual
relationship between the management and the claimant came to
end by efflux of time on 31.03.2018 and after that it was not
renewed. The management has cited several judgments in written
statement. The management has denied all the remaining
allegations of claimant and has prayed for dismissal of claim
statement of the claimant.
13) After completion of pleadings, matter was listed for
framing of issues.
ISSUES
14) On the basis of pleadings of the parties and the reference,
the following issues were framed on 07.03.2022:
LIR No.880/2021
Vikas Gupta Vs M/s Living Media India Ltd. Page No. 6 of 27
i) Whether the claimant is not a 'claimant' as per the
claimant's definition in Industrial Dispute Act, 1947?
OPM.
ii) Whether this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and
entertain the present reference? OPM
iii) Whether the claimant voluntarily settled all his accounts
with the management on 08.12.2017 and received full and
final settlement amount of Rs. 5,78,282/- from the
management?OPM
iv) Whether the services of the claimant were terminated
illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so,
to what consequential relief is the claimant/claimant
entitled for?OPW
v) Relief.
EVIDENCE OF claimant
15) In order to prove its case, claimant has stepped into witness
box and deposed as witness WW1 and tendered his evidence by
way of affidavit Ex.WW1/A and he has relied upon documents
which are marked as Mark-A and Mark-B. The claimant was
cross-examined and discharged.
EVIDENCE OF MANAGEMENT
16) Management has examined Sh. Aiman Hasaney, S/o Sh.
Syed Hasaney as MW1 and he has tendered his evidence by way
of affidavit Ex.MW1/A and he has relied upon following
documents:-
(i) Ex. WW1/1 is copy of his authorization letter.
(ii) Ex. WW1/2 is copy of full and final settlement sheet and cheque.
(iii) Ex. WW1/3 (Colly) are copies of letters regarding assessment and
increase of salary from 2004-2016
LIR No.880/2021
Vikas Gupta Vs M/s Living Media India Ltd. Page No. 7 of 27
(iv) Ex. WW1/4 (Colly) are copies of letter regarding assessment and
increase of salary from 2004-2016 is copy of postal receipts.
17) MW1 was cross-examined and thereafter, management evidence was
closed.
18) Detailed final arguments were advanced on behalf of both parties.
Written submission and judgments were filed by both parties and same
has been perused.
19) Issue-wise findings of this Court are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1
Whether the claimant/ workman is not a 'workman' as per the
claimant's definition in Industrial Dispute Act, 1947? OPM.
20) The onus to prove this issue was on the management.
21) The management has contended that the claimant is not covered
under statutory definition of 'workman' under section 2(s) of
Industrial Disputes Act as present claimant had lastly worked in
the management as independent 'Consultant' and that the
nomenclature 'Consultant' itself suggests that it is managerial and
supervisory post as many employees of management were
working under the workman and he was managing design
operations and allocated work responsibilities to other employees.
Management has further contended that as a designer, claimant
used his creative ability to perform his duties and therefore, he is
not covered under category of 'workman' under Industrial
Disputes Act.
22) Management has further contended that since workman was
appointed in the management as Consultant by virtue of Fixed-
term Consultant Agreement dated 08.12.2017, Ex. WW1/X1
LIR No.880/2021
Vikas Gupta Vs M/s Living Media India Ltd. Page No. 8 of 27
therefore, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 shall not apply to him as
cessation of his services on expiry of the fixed-term contract does
not amount to retrenchment or illegal termination under the
provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and that the appointment
and disengagement of the claimant in terms of contract of his
service, shall be covered under Civil Law.
23) Management has also pleaded that the claimant cannot be
considered as working journalist under Working Journalist and
Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of service) and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 as the workman was lastly
rendering his services to the management on 31.03.2018, in
capacity of independent consultant under fixed-term contract.
24) The workman has alleged in his claim statement that he had
initially joined the services of the management on 17.07.2000 as
senior visualizer and had continued to work there and that he had
lastly worked in the management, as Chief Designer and that
during said period, he was a working journalist covered under
Working Journalist and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions
of service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 and that he
was not discharging any managerial or administrative duties in the
management. The claimant has admitted in his cross-examination
that w.e.f 08.12.2017 he was working as consultant in
management, in terms of Consultant Agreement Ex. WW1/X1.
25) In order to discharge the onus of proving that claimant is not
covered within the ambit of statutory definition of workman under
section 2 (s) of Industrial Dispute Act, management has relied on
LIR No.880/2021
Vikas Gupta Vs M/s Living Media India Ltd. Page No. 9 of 27
copy of Consultant Agreement dated 08.12.2017, which is Ex.
WW1/X1.
26) In the case at hand, there is no dispute regarding the facts that
initially workman was appointed as Senior Visualiser in
management vide his appointment letter dated 14.10.2003, he had
continued his employment in management till 08.12.2017 when
he was Chief Designer and that by way of Consultant Agreement
dated 08.12.2017 Ex.WW1/X1, claimant was appointed as
Consultant in the management and this Court has to analyse
whether work done by claimant as 'Consultant' in management
during his employment in management in terms of Ex. WW1/X1,
is covered within the statutory definition of 'workman' u/s 2(s) of
Industrial Disputes Act.
27) Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 defines the
expression "workman" to mean any person "employed in any
industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical,
operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward".
28) The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
H.R.Adyanthaya vs. Sandoz (India) Ltd., 1994 (II) CLR 552 has
held that in order that a person can be designated as a workman
under Section 2(s) Industrial Dispute Act, he/she must be
employed to do work which falls within one of the stipulated
categories viz. manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational,
clerical or supervisory. In other words, it is not enough that a
person is not covered by either of the four exceptions to the
definition. It is now also a well settled principle of law that the
burden lies on the person who asserts the status of a claimant
LIR No.880/2021
Vikas Gupta Vs M/s Living Media India Ltd. Page No. 10 of 27
under section 2(s) to establish with reference to the dominant
nature of his/her duties that the work, which is performed falls
within one of the stipulated categories in Section 2(s) of Industrial
Disputes Act.
29) The claimant has categorically admitted in his cross-examination
that he was working with the management as Consultant in terms
of Consultant Agreement dated 08.12.2017 Ex. WW1/X1, though
he has denied the suggestion of AR of the management that he
was discharging supervisory function in the management. The
management has relied on Consultant Agreement Ex.WW1/X1 to
substantiate its claim that the job profile of claimant as
'consultant' involved creative input as a designer and he was not
doing any manual, technical, skilled or unskilled job during the
course of his contractual engagement as consultant with
management.
30) It is relevant to note that Clause 4 of Consultant Agreement Ex.
WW1/X1, admittedly executed by the claimant, specifically
enumerates the functions and obligations of the claimant as
'consultant' in management and Clause 4 of Consultant
Agreement is reproduced herein:-
4.1 The Consultant shall at all times during the Term:
(a) render and perform the Services during the term, with
all reasonable care and skill and in accordance with
reasonable time scales as specified from time to time, with
the highest professional standards and in willing co-
operation with such persons/ employees of the Company as
the Company may reasonably require;
(b) attend such meetings as the Company may reasonably
require at dates and times to be mutually agreed to discuss
the progress in the Services provided by the Consultant;
LIR No.880/2021
Vikas Gupta Vs M/s Living Media India Ltd. Page No. 11 of 27
(c) shall visit work at the Company's premises at such
address or office/(s) as may be determined by the Company
and indicated to the Consultant from time to time;
(d) not without the written consent of the Company order
goods nor incur any expense/ liability on Company's behalf
nor pledge the credit of the Company nor hold himself out
as being entitled to do so;
(e) provide the Services as per the requirement and
complete satisfaction of the Company;
(f) during his tenure as Consultant for the Company shall
not work for any media organization/Company viz in
Television, Radio, Print etc or for any other organization
where such "work" entails undertaking obligations of the
nature that are envisaged for the Consultant in terms of this
Agreement; deliver to the Company all papers, documents,
floppies, CD's and other materials of whatsoever kind
prepared by the Consultant or coming into possession of
the Consultant, for the Services that are offered to the
Company.
(g) The Consultant agrees that any and all intellectual
property generated in the course of his providing the
Services hereunder shall vest solely and exclusively in the
Company and the Consultant shall not have any right or
claim over the same.
(h) The Consultant shall keep the Company indemnified
and harmless against the breach of any of his obligations
contained in this Agreement.
31) From perusal of Clause 4 of Consultant Agreement Ex. WW1/X1,
it is clear that the claimant was authorized to order goods for the
company and pledge credit and to incur expenses/liability on
behalf of the company, with the written consent of the company
and he was also providing services to management in nature of
intellectual property and therefore, it appears that the workman in
his tenure as consultant was not only authorized to incur expenses
on behalf of the company, with the consent of the company but
was also rendering intellectual property-related services to the
management.
LIR No.880/2021
Vikas Gupta Vs M/s Living Media India Ltd. Page No. 12 of 27
32) In Twenty First Century Printers Ltd vs K. P. Abraham, 2008 SCC
OnLine Bombay 695, it has been held that activity of purchase
appears to be managerial function and this observation was made
while considering a plea as to whether a Purchase Officer was a
workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the ID Act, it was
held that:
"13. It was, however, argued that the respondent could not
be said to be part of the management because he had no one working under him. The true test must depend on the nature of the function and not whether the person has any other employee working under him. Indeed, an employee can be at the lowest managerial post and could still be said to perform managerial function. Having regard to the nature of the activity of purchase, it appears that the function must be classified as managerial being part of the controlling and regulating functions of the industry. In this view of the matter, the respondent no.1 must be held to be an employee mainly in a managerial capacity and is, therefore, excepted from the meaning of "workman" by virtue of section 2(s)(iii) of the Act."
33) Similarly in Dhruba Kumar Changkokoti vs Travel Corporation of India Ltd, 2000(II) CLR 644, it was held that a person who was employed to promote tourism of a travel company in Eastern Europe could not be regarded as a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the ID Act. In Mukesh K. Tripathi vs. Senior Divisional Manager, LIC 2004 (III) CLR 534, it was held that a person who had been recruited to develop the business of the employer could not have done so without being a full fledged officer of the Corporation and would not be a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the ID Act.
34) The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held in Tata Sons Ltd vs S. Bandyopadhyay, 2004 LawSuit (Del) 203 that an employee providing consultancy services for risk management and LIR No.880/2021 Vikas Gupta Vs M/s Living Media India Ltd. Page No. 13 of 27 development of business for marketing purposes, was not a skilled worker and the Hon'ble Court had opined that the nature of work clearly involved a considerable amount of mental inputs related to creativity and imagination and that such work would not fall within the meaning of the terms manual, skilled unskilled or technical.
35) Admittedly, the workman was working as consultant in the management since 08.12.2017 and discharging services and obligations as enumerated in Clause 4 of Consultant Agreement Ex. WW1/X1, which included attending meetings, office visits ordering goods and pledging the credit of the company, with its consent and intellectual property related services for the company and the nature of his role and responsibilities as 'consultant' in the management, clearly demonstrates that his job as consultant in management was not manual, unskilled, skilled technical, operational and by no stretch of imagination, he can be considered 'workman' within statutory definition of workman under section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
36) In view of foregoing discussions and observations, this Court is of the considered opinion that the management has succeeded in proving that the claimant in the present case is not covered under the statutory definition of workman u/s 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act.
37) Accordingly, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the management and against the workman.
LIR No.880/2021Vikas Gupta Vs M/s Living Media India Ltd. Page No. 14 of 27 ISSUE NO. 2.
Whether this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present reference? OPM
38) The onus to prove this issue was also upon the management.
39) The management has taken preliminary objections in its written statement that this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present case.
40) The claimant has asserted in statement of claim that claimant had earlier claim before ALC, Noida, U. P vide his statement of claim on 20.09.2018 and at that time management had raised objections that concerned authority at Noida, U. P had no jurisdiction in the matter by contending that only ALC at Delhi had jurisdiction and that subsequently claimant had withdrawn his statement of claim from there and he had thereafter filed fresh claim before appropriate Authority at Delhi. Ld. AR of claimant has argued that this Court has territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present reference received from Joint Labour Commissioner, Labour Department, New Delhi District, New Delhi.
41) On the aspect of territorial jurisdiction of Labour Courts, it is pertinent to refer to land mark judgment of J. Balaji Vs. The Hindu New Delhi & Anr, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5352, wherein it was observed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that 'situs of employment' of claimant would be determinative factor in conferring territorial jurisdiction upon Labour Courts for deciding a labour dispute raised by the claimant.
42) In the case at hand, the management witness MW1 has categorically admitted before this Court in his cross-examination LIR No.880/2021 Vikas Gupta Vs M/s Living Media India Ltd. Page No. 15 of 27 that claimant had joined the services of the management at New Delhi and therefore, the situs of employment of the claimant during relevant peirod was New Delhi.
43) Further, the Consultant Agreement dated 08.12.2017, Ex.
WW1/X1 was also executed between claimant and the management at New Delhi. Moreover, the management as well as the claimant had mutually agreed to confer the jurisdiction upon Courts situated in Delhi, in respect of any dispute arising between the parties under agreement Ex.WW1/X1, as envisaged in Clause (11.8) of the Consultant Agreement, Ex. WW1/X1 and therefore, as per the terms and conditions of the Consultant Agreement Ex. WW1/X1 itself, the Courts at Delhi, have jurisdiction to adjudicate the disputes arising between the parties, in respect of matters covered by the said agreement.
44) Thus, in view of admission of management witness MW1 Sh.Aiman Hasaney that situs of employment of the claimant as 'Consultant' in management was at New Delhi and in terms of Clause (11.8) of Consultant Agreement Ex. WW1/X1, this Court is of considered opinion that being the Designated Labour Court in respect of labour-related disputes, this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present case on the basis of the reference received in respect of industrial dispute between the claimant and the management herein.
45) Accordingly, in view of the foregoing discussion, issue no. 2 is decided against the management and in favour of the workman.
LIR No.880/2021Vikas Gupta Vs M/s Living Media India Ltd. Page No. 16 of 27 ISSUE NO. 3.
Whether the claimant voluntarily settled all his accounts with the management on 08.12.2017 and received full and final settlement amount of Rs. 5,78,282/- from the management?OPM
46) The onus to prove this issue was on the management.
47) The management had asserted in its written statement that the claimant had joined management in 2003 and was working with the management as Chief Designer till 08.12.2017 and that on 08.12.2017, he had voluntarily taken full and final settlement of his account with the management of sum of Rs. 5,78,282/- by way of 'Final Payment Advice-cum-receipt' and this settlement amount was paid to claimant by the management by way of cheque bearing no. 000153 dated 08.12.2017 drawn on ICICI Bank. The management has further asserted that the claimant had voluntarily accepted the payment of the above said settlement amount from the management vide abovesaid cheque, towards settlement of his entire dues and claims, without any protest.
48) Apparently, the statement of claim of the claimant is absolutely silent on this point as there is no reference therein of any settlement with the management. Moreover, the claimant has opted not to file any replication to explain and clarify his stand regarding the purported full and final settlement dated 08.12.2017 between himself and management, or regarding 'Final payment Advice-cum-receipt' dated 08.12.2017 or regarding the acceptance of cheque bearing no. 000153 dated 08.12.2017 amounting to Rs.5,78,282/- from the management.
LIR No.880/2021Vikas Gupta Vs M/s Living Media India Ltd. Page No. 17 of 27
49) In evidence affidavit Ex. WW1/A, the claimant has stated on solemn affirmation that management wanted to terminate his services and that management had asked him to submit his resignation, but on his refusal to submit resignation, the management without his consent and under threat and coercion had issued a letter appointing him as consultant in management on 08.12.2017 and thus, even the evidence affidavit of the claimant Ex. WW1/A is conspicuously silent regarding the purported full and final settlement dated 08.12.2017 Ex. WW1/X1 with the management and fails to furnish any explanation regarding the aforesaid settlement or even regarding the aforesaid cheque bearing no. 000153 dated 08.12.2017.
50) In order to discharge the onus of proving the full and final settlement dated 08.12.2017 between claimant and management, the management's witness MW1 Sh. Aiman Hasaney has relied on Ex. MW1/2 (colly), which includes copy of 'Final Payment Advise-cum-Receipt' dated 08.12.2017 and copy of cheque no. 000153 dated 08.12.2017 issued in favour of claimant by management for sum of Rs. 5,78,282/-. The claimant has not disputed or challenged Ex. MW1/2 (Colly) nor has he specifically denied that he had received the amount of Rs. 5,78,282/- on encashment of cheque bearing no. 000153 dated 08.12.2017, received from management in pursuance of full and final settlement vide Ex. MW1/2 (Colly).
51) The only objection raised by the AR of the claimant is that claimant was forced by management to resign and even the LIR No.880/2021 Vikas Gupta Vs M/s Living Media India Ltd. Page No. 18 of 27 claimant during his cross-examination has denied the suggestion that he had voluntarily given resignation in December 2017.
52) However, it is pertinent to note that in his statement of claim as well as in his evidence affidavit Ex. WW1/A, the version of the claimant is that the management had compelled him to submit his resignation, but he had refused to submit his resignation. Therefore, contention of workman that he had given his resignation to management under force and compulsion, is inherently contradictory to his version in his statement of claim that he had refused to give his resignation to the management.
53) Further, the claimant has pleaded that on his refusal to give his resignation, management had issued him a letter appointing him as Consultant in the management on or around 08.12.2017, without his consent and under threat and coercion. Now, this plea of claimant seems inherently contradictory for several reasons. Firstly, if the management wanted to terminate his services, there is no reasonable explanation as to why management would again appoint him as 'Consultant' in management with effect from same date vide Consultant Agreement dated 08.12.2017, providing him better pay structure and service condition with consultant fees of Rs. 40,000/- for 15 days work in a month. Secondly, if full and final settlement vide Ex. MW1/2 (Colly) was not voluntary, there was no plausible reason for claimant to accept the cheque bearing no. 000153 in pursuance of the aforesaid settlement and to get it encashed and thus realize the settlement amount of Rs. 5,78,282/. Thirdly, while working as Chief Designer in management, claimant could not have been appointed as Consultant in LIR No.880/2021 Vikas Gupta Vs M/s Living Media India Ltd. Page No. 19 of 27 management, with better pay package and service conditions and therefore, it was incumbent upon the claimant to first resign or leave his employment as Chief Designer from management in order to join the management as consultant and therefore, the resignation of the claimant appears to be necessary prerequisite before his appointment as 'Consultant' in the management. Fourthly, if appointment of claimant as Consultant in management w.e.f 08.12.2017 was against his wishes, there is no explanation as to why he joined the management as 'Consultant' and had continued to serve the management in that capacity for about 3 months from 08.12.2017, without lodging any complaint or any protest and had duly accepted his consultant fees for said period, as per terms and conditions of the Consultant Agreement Ex. WW1/X1.
54) Evidently, the Final Payment Advise-cum-receipt and the cheque no. 000153, which are Ex. MW1/2 (Colly), has not been challenged nor disputed during cross-examination of MW1. No other document has been brought on record by the claimant to challenge or rebut the testimony of MW1, on this point.
55) It is relevant to point out that the receipt endorsed at the bottom of Final Payment Advise-cum-receipt, Ex. MW1/2, bears the signatures of the claimant, which has not been disputed by claimant. The recital receipt endorsed at bottom of Final Payment Advise-cum-receipt, is as under:-
Receipt Received a sum of Rs. 5,78,282/-, (Rupees Five Lakh Seventy Eight Thousand Two Hundred & Eight Two Only) by DD/cheque no. 000153 drawn on 08-Dec-17 ICICI from M/s Living Media India Ltd. This payment contains all LIR No.880/2021 Vikas Gupta Vs M/s Living Media India Ltd. Page No. 20 of 27 claims of courses or actions of whatever kind of nature which I have or may I have agent Living Media India Ltd. And its employees, agents, officers and any subsidiary of affiliated companies by virtue of my former employment. I further confirm that now there is nothing due to me from the said employer in any account whatsoever.
56) Evidently, since the claimant has not challenged the Final Payment Advise-cum-receipt settlement Ex. MW1/2 nor he has denied the receipt of cheque No. 000153 of sum of Rs. 5,78,282/-
from the management, in pursuance above said full and final settlement with the management nor he has raised any objections challenging the validity and legality of aforesaid Ex. MW1/2 (Colly), therefore, in these circumstances, this Court holds that the management has succeeded in establishing that claimant had voluntarily settled all his accounts with the management on 08.12.2017 and that workman had received full and final settlement amount of Rs. 5,78,282/- from the management.
57) Accordingly, issue no. 3 is decided in favour of the management and against the claimant.
ISSUE NO. 4.
Whether the services of the claimant were terminated illegally and /or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what consequential relief is the claimant /claimant entitled for?OPW
58) The onus to prove this issue was on the claimant.
59) The claimant has alleged in his claim statement that he has joined the services of management on 17.07.2000 as Senior Visualiser and had lastly worked with the management as Chief Designer and alleged that when he demanded implementation and fixation of his salary as per Majithia Wage Board Award from LIR No.880/2021 Vikas Gupta Vs M/s Living Media India Ltd. Page No. 21 of 27 management, the management in order to terminate his services had asked him to resign. The claimant has alleged that on his refusal to resign, the management had issued him a letter appointing him as consultant in management, without his consent and under threat and coercion. The claimant has alleged that management had subsequently terminated his services on 18.03.2018. The claimant has alleged that his services were terminated by the management only to avoid payment of benefits as per Majithia Wage Board Award.
60) The management, on the other hand, has denied that it had terminated the services of claimant. Instead, the management has asserted that after initial appointment in management vide appointment letter dated 14.10.2003 as Senior Visualiser in the management, the workman had continued in its employment till 08.12.2017, when he was Chief Designer in management and that thereafter claimant had voluntarily accepted full and final settlement of all his claims from management vide Full Payment Advise-cum receipt Ex. MW1/2 (Colly) and had accepted settlement amount of Rs. 5,78,282/- from management vide cheque no. 000153 dated 08.12.2017 of sum of Rs. 5,78,282/- drawn on ICICI Bank.
61) The management has asserted that after accepting the full and final settlement with management, the claimant had voluntarily agreed to work as independent consultant in management by signing Fixed-Term Consultant Agreement Ex. WW1/X1 with the management and as per the terms and conditions of the above said consultant agreement, claimant had joined the management as LIR No.880/2021 Vikas Gupta Vs M/s Living Media India Ltd. Page No. 22 of 27 Consultant for fixed term till 31.03.2018. The management has contended that the services of the claimant had ended automatically on expiry of Fixed-term Consultant Agreement on 31.03.2018, with efflux of time, as aforesaid agreement was not renewed or extended further.
62) In order to prove his illegal termination, the claimant has relied on copy of demand notice Mark-A sent to management via post and postal receipts thereof, which is Mark B. During his cross- examination, the claimant had admitted that he was working with the management as consultant in terms of Consultant Agreement dated 08.12.2017, Ex. WW1/X1. He has not disputed the Consultant Agreement Ex. WW1/X1.
63) The onus was on the workman to prove that he was terminated by management on 18.03.2018. However, the claimant has not produced his termination letter or any other document to substantiate his claim that he was terminated by management on 18.03.2018. The claimant has not led any other credible evidence on record to substantiate his claim that he was terminated on 18.03.2018 by management. Moreover, no such suggestion was given to the management's witness MW1 that claimant was terminated by management on 18.03.2018. On the contrary, claimant had categorically admitted in his cross-examination, that his last working day in management was 31.03.2018 and thus, contradicted his own version that he was terminated on 18.03.2018 and thus his claim on this point has been falsified.
64) Since, workman has admitted that his appointment as Consultant in management was in terms of Consultant Agreement Ex.
LIR No.880/2021Vikas Gupta Vs M/s Living Media India Ltd. Page No. 23 of 27 WW1/X1, therefore, as a natural corollary, his service conditions, nature and tenure of his service shall be governed by stipulations contained in Consultant Agreement Ex. WW1/X1.
65) Clause (3) of Consultant Agreement Ex. WW1/X1, clearly stipulates that consultant agreement was only for fixed term till 31.03.2018. The claimant has also admitted in his cross- examination that his last working day in management was 31.03.2018 and this admission of claimant thus lends credence to version of management that services of claimant had ended on 31.03.2018, automatically as Consultant Agreement had expired on 31.03.2018, with efflux of time. Apparently, it is not the case of claimant that Fixed-term Consultant Agreement Ex. WW1/X1 was extended further, after its expiry on 31.03.2018 or was renewed and thus, there was no extension of Consultant Agreement Ex. WW1/X1 after its expiry on 31.03.2018.
66) It is settled position of law that where appointment is for fixed period and consequential termination of services on expiry of such contract due to non-renewal of contract, is not covered under section 25 (F) of ID Act and does not amount to 'retrenchment' in terms of section 2(oo)(bb) of ID Act. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment of State of Rajasthan vs Rameshwar Lal Gahlot AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1001, wherein it was held that:-
"The controversy now stands concluded by a judgment of this Court reported in M. Venugopal vs Divisional Manager, LIC., (1994)2 SCC 323. Therein this Court had held that once an appointment is for a fixed period. Section 25 F does not apply as it is covered by clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Act. It is contended by the respondent that since the order of the learned single judge was not LIR No.880/2021 Vikas Gupta Vs M/s Living Media India Ltd. Page No. 24 of 27 challenged, the termination became final. Consequently, the appellant would be liable to pay back wages on reinstatement. In our considered view, the opinion expressed by learned single Judge as well as Division Bench are incorrect in law. When the appointment is for a fixed period, unless there is finding that power under clause (bb) of Section 2 (oo) was misused or vitiated by its mala fide exercise, it cannot be held that the termination is illegal. In its absence, the employer could terminate the services in terms of the letter of appointment unless it is a colourable exercise of power. Unfortunately, neither the learned single Judge nor the Division Bench recorded any finding in this behalf. Therefore, where the termination is in terms of letter of appointment saved by clause (bb), neither reinstatement or fresh appointment could be made."
67) Retrenchment is defined under Section 2 (oo) of the I. D. Act, which reads as follows:
"retrenchment' means the termination by the employer of the services of the claimant for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action but does not include
(a) voluntarily retrenchment of the claimant;or
(b) retrenchment of the claimant on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of the employment between the employer and the claimant concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or (bb) termination of the services of the claimant as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the claimant concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or (c ) termination of the service of a claimant on the ground of continued ill-health.
68) Section 25-F ID Act provides statutory procedure to be followed in case of 'retrenchment' of claimant and the definition of the 'retrenchment' in Section 2(oo) of ID Act is conclusive.
Retrenchment has been defined as the termination of the services of a workman by the employer for any reason, whatsoever, except the four exceptions carved out therein and one of the exception to LIR No.880/2021 Vikas Gupta Vs M/s Living Media India Ltd. Page No. 25 of 27 'retrenchment' as per Clause (bb) of Section 2 (oo) of the I. D. Act is termination of service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman on its expiry.
69) In present case, it has been proved that claimant was appointed as Consultant for fixed-term by way of Consultant Agreement Ex.WW1/X1 and that on expiry of abovesaid consultant agreement on 31.03.2018, the claimant was automatically discharged from services of management, due to non-renewal of his consultant agreement with the management and in these circumstances, cessation of services of claimant on 31.03.2018 is well covered within statutorily recognized exception to 'retrenchment' envisaged in section 2 (oo) (bb) of ID Act and therefore, it does not attract rigors of Section 25-F of ID Act.
70) In this regard, it is important to note that in Director, Institute of Management Development U. P., Appellant vs Smt Pushpa Srivastava, Respondent; 1992 (65) FLR it has been held that:-
"Where the appointment is purely on adhoc basis and is contractual and by efflux of time, the appointment comes to an end, the person holding such post can have no right to continue in the post. This is so even if the person is continued from time to time on adhoc basis for more than a year"
71) Accordingly, this Court holds that management has succeeded in proving that the termination of services of claimant, on expiry of Consultant Agreement Ex. WW1/X1 on 31.03.2018, due to non- renewal of the said contract, does not amount to retrenchment and therefore, termination of services of claimant is not illegal.
LIR No.880/2021Vikas Gupta Vs M/s Living Media India Ltd. Page No. 26 of 27
72) In view of these observations, this Court holds that claimant has failed to prove that termination of his services was illegal or in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. Accordingly, issue no.4 is decided against the workman and in favour of management.
ISSUE NO. 5Relief.
73) Consequent upon findings of this Court in Issue no. 1, 2, 3 & 4, this Court is of opinion that claimant is not entitled to any relief from management, in the present case.
74) With these observations, issue no. 5 stands disposed off.
75) Accordingly, the statement of claim filed by the claimant is dismissed.
76) Award has been passed and Reference is answered accordingly.
77) Signed copy of the award be sent to the Labour Commissioner, Government of NCT of Delhi for publication, as per rules. The award be also uploaded on server. Digitally signed by RITU RITU Date:
SINGH File be consigned to Record Room. SINGH 2025.10.09 16:39:44 +0530 Announced in the Open Court (RITU SINGH) on 09.10.2025 District Judge & Addl. Sessions Judge POLC-IV, RADC New Delhi LIR No.880/2021 Vikas Gupta Vs M/s Living Media India Ltd. Page No. 27 of 27