Delhi District Court
Jai Shankar Joshi vs Ms Delhi Transco Ltd on 29 March, 2025
BEFORE SH. RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA,
PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-II,
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT, NEW DELHI
ID No. 19/2016
Sh. Jai Shankar Joshi
s/o late Sh. S. S. Joshi
r/o H. No. K-10, Above Chaudhary Dairy,
Ganesh Nagar, IInd Shakarpur,
Delhi-110092
represented by DSE Workers Union
H-287, DESU Colony,
Tripolia, Gurmandi, Delhi-110007 ......Claimant
Versus
Delhi Transco Ltd.
through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Shakti Sadan, Kotla Road, New Delhi .....Management/ Respondent
Date of Institution :- 04.07.2013
Date of Award :- 29.03.2025
AWAR D
RAKESH
KUMAR
1. This is a Reference No. F.24(77)/13/Lab./CD/498 dated
SHARMA
Digitally signed by
RAKESH KUMAR
SHARMA
28.06.2013 sent by the Government of NCT of Delhi to this Tribunal
Date: 2025.04.04
with the following terms:-
15:44:50 +0530
(a) " Whether the workman Sh. Jai Shankar Joshi, s/o Late
Sh. S. S. Joshi is covered under the definition of a
workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the ID Act 1947
and if the answer of the question (a) is affirmative then?"
ID NO. 19/2016 Jai Shankar Joshi vs. M/s Delhi Transco. Ltd. Page no. 1/19
(b) " Whether Sh. Jai Shankar Joshi, s/o Late Sh. S. S.
Joshi who was assigned to work on the post of Assistant
Accountant vide erstwhile DESU order dated 04.01.1990 is
entitled to the earned wages for the post of the Assistant
Accountant; if so, to what relief is he entitled and what
directions are necessary in this respect?"
2. Initially, the reference was sent to Labour Court. However,
vide corrigendum dated 25.11.2014, the matter was sent to this Tribunal.
3. Admitted facts are that the claimant was working as Junior
Clerk in Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking (DESU) (predecessor of
the management). He was promoted to Senior Clerk. Vide order dated
04.01.1990 passed by the management, 171 posts of Senior Clerk were
upgraded as Assistant Accountant. The claimant was asked to work
against the upgraded post of Assistant Accountant. While designated as
Senior Clerk, he continued to work as Assistant Accountant
continuously and without any break till 06.04.2000 when he was
regularized/ actually promoted as Assistant Accountant. DSEB
Employees' Union raised an Industrial Dispute on 08.06.1993 with the
following terms:
"Whether the workmen who had been assigned the work of Asstt.
Accountant vide order No. E/NT/89-90-411 dated 04.01.1990 is
entitled to the wages of Asstt. Accountant and if so, what
Digitally
directions are necessary this respect?".
signed by
RAKESH
RAKESH KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.04.04
15:45:00
+0530
The dispute was decided by the Court of Sh. P. S. Teji, the
then Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Delhi vide award dated
09.12.2002 holding that only Sh. K. L. Sharma and Sh. D. K. Gupta (i.e.
ID NO. 19/2016 Jai Shankar Joshi vs. M/s Delhi Transco. Ltd. Page no. 2/19
only two officials in the list of 171 employees) be given pay-scale of
Assistant Accountant in pursuance of order dated 04.01.1990 till they
were actually placed in that scale on promotion. Relief was given to
these two claimants only because they examined themselves before the
Tribunal. Since the other claimants in the said matter failed to examine
themselves before the Tribunal, the relief was declined to them. The
claimants in the said reference who were denied relief including the
present claimant filed a writ petition seeking similar relief as given to
Sh. D. K. Gupta and Sh. K. L. Sharma. The Writ petition was dismissed
vide order dated 01.02.2006 with liberty to the claimants to approach the
correct legal forum by either filing a fresh reference or for enforcement
of the award. LPA against the said order dated 01.02.2006 was also
dismissed vide order dated 10.12.2007. The SLP was also dismissed by
Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 11.08.2008. Conciliation
proceedings initiated by the claimants herein, thereafter, failed.
4. In his claim, it is submitted by the claimant that the award
dated 09.12.2002 passed by Sh. P. S. Teji, POIT was challenged by the
management by filing a writ petition. The Writ petition was dismissed
vide order dated 31.03.2005. Review petition filed by the management
against the order was also dismissed vide order dated 20.04.2005. The
claimant is entitled to the wages of Assistant Accountant w.e.f.
04.01.1990 since he actually worked as Assistant Accountant. The
Digitally
signed by
RAKESH
RAKESH KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
action of the management in refusing the same is illegal, arbitrary and
SHARMA Date:
2025.04.04
against rules. The Union, in its meeting, resolved to take up the case of
15:45:20
+0530
RAKESH Digitally signed by
RAKESH KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.04.04
SHARMA
SHARMA 15:45:10 +0530
ID NO. 19/2016 Jai Shankar Joshi vs. M/s Delhi Transco. Ltd. Page no. 3/19
the claimant with the management. The union sent a demand notice to
the management on 18.05.2011 but no reply has been received.
5. The management has contested the claim by filing a written
statement. As preliminary objections, it is submitted that (a) the claim is
highly time barred; (b) the claim is barred by res judicata, since a similar
dispute raised by the claimant has been decided by the Court of Sh. P. S.
Teji, the then POIT; (c) this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try
the dispute since the subject matter of the dispute pertains to Schedule 3
of the ID Act, (d) the dispute has not been legally espoused by any
recognized union and; (e) vide order dated 04.01.1990, the claimant was
assigned the current duty charge of the post of Assistant Accountant. It
was purely a stop gap arrangement with the stipulations that it will not
give any claim for seniority or other benefits in the service matter and
that the duties were without any extra remuneration. Hence, the
claimant has concealed material facts and has not come to the Tribunal
with clean hands. On merits, the contents of the claim, except matters
of record, are denied by the management who has sought dismissal of
the claim with heavy costs.
6. In his rejoinder, the claimant has controverted the pleas of
the management and has reiterated those of his claim.
Digitally
signed by
RAKESH
RAKESH KUMAR
7. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.04.04
15:45:28
+0530 framed:-
ID NO. 19/2016 Jai Shankar Joshi vs. M/s Delhi Transco. Ltd. Page no. 4/19
1. Whether the claimant has approached this Tribunal
with clean hands? OPW
2. Whether the present claim of workman is time
barred? OPM
3. Whether the present claim of workman is barred by
the principle of res-judicata? OPM
4. Whether this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try and
entertain the present dispute? OPM
5. Whether present claim of workman has been legally
espoused by the recognized union? OPW
6. As per terms of reference.
7. Relief.
8. The claimant filed affidavits of two persons including
himself in his evidence. WW1 is the claimant himself. In addition, an
affidavit of one Sh. Kuldeep Kumar was also filed by the claimant in
support of his claim. However, the said Kuldeep Kumar never appeared
for tendering the affidavit or for his cross-examination. Hence, the
affidavit of Kuldeep Kumar cannot be read. The result is that there is an
affidavit of claimant himself only in support of his case.
9. In his affidavit filed as examination-in-chief, the claimant
relied upon the following documents:-
(a) Office order dated 04.01.1990 as Ex.WW1/1.
Digitally signed
by RAKESH
RAKESH KUMAR (b) Award dated 09.12.2002 passed by Sh. P.S. Teji as
Ex.WW1/2.
SHARMA
KUMAR Date:
SHARMA 2025.04.04
15:45:36
+0530
ID NO. 19/2016 Jai Shankar Joshi vs. M/s Delhi Transco. Ltd. Page no. 5/19
(c) Office order dated 06.04.2000 as Ex. WW1/3.
(d) Delhi High Court order dated 10.12.2007 as Ex.
WW1/4.
(e) Resolution of the union dated 16.05.2011 as
Ex.WW1/5.
(f) Demand letter dated 18.05.2011 sent by the union as
Ex.WW1/6.
10. The management examined one Sh. Ram Kumar, Dy.
Manager (HR)-II as the only witness (MW1) in support of its case.
11. Although in his affidavit filed as examination-in-chief
MW-1 Ram Kumar referred to a copy of Recruitment and Promotion
Rules from 04.01.1990 to April 2000 (DESU Period) as Ex. RW1/1,
while tendering the affidavit, he did not refer to any document.
12. Written arguments were filed by both the ARs who also
made some oral submissions.
13. The management relied upon the following authorities in
support of its contentions:
(a) Award dated 10.08.2018 passed by Ms. Shail Jain,
POIT in ID No. 833/2016 Darshan Kant Colly & ors.
vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.;
(b) Award dated 01.11.2021 passed by Sh. Jitender
Digitally
signed by
Kumar Mishra, POIT in ID No. 860/2016 Workman
RAKESH
KUMAR
RAKESH
KUMAR
SHARMA vs. The Management of M/s Delhi Transco Ltd.;
SHARMA Date:
2025.04.04
15:45:43
+0530
ID NO. 19/2016 Jai Shankar Joshi vs. M/s Delhi Transco. Ltd. Page no. 6/19
(c) Judgment dated 28.01.2000 passed by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Civil Appeal no. 638 of 2000
Nedungadi Bank Ltd. vs. K. P. Madhavankutty &
Ors., as reported in Indian Kanoon;
(d) (2005) 5 Supreme Court Cases 91, Haryana State
Coop. Land Development Bank vs. Neelam;
(e) Judgment dated 17.10.2014 passed by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Civil Appeal no. 9849/2014 State
of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava
& Ors., as reported in Indian Kanoon
(f) (2012) 05 DEL CK 0485 Ramesh Kumar vs. Delhi
Jal Board;
(g) 138 (2007) DELHI LAW TIMES 528, Satbir Singh
vs. Management of Suptd. Engineer & Ors.;
14. During the arguments, it was submitted by AR for the
Management that he does not press the issues regarding (a) the claim
being barred by res judicata and (b) this Court does not have jurisdiction
to entertain and try the present dispute. His statement was recorded in
this regard.
15. I have gone through the record including the written
arguments filed by both the parties as well as the authorities relied upon
by the management.
16. My issue-wise findings are as follows:
Digitally signed
RAKESH by RAKESH
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.04.04
15:45:49 +0530
ID NO. 19/2016 Jai Shankar Joshi vs. M/s Delhi Transco. Ltd. Page no. 7/19
Issue No.1
17. The burden of proving this issue was on the claimant. In its
written statement, the contention of the management is that there was a
stipulation in office order dated 04.01.1990 that assignment of current
duty charge of the post of assistant accountant shall be without any extra
remuneration and that it will not accrue any superior claim, any
seniority or other benefit in the service matter, which stipulation has
been concealed by the claimant.
18. Even in his rejoinder, the claimant has denied these
contentions of suppression of material facts taken in the written
statement.
19. As noted above, in its evidence, the management did not
rely upon any document much less the office order dated 04.01.1990.
The claimant relied upon the same as Ex.WW1/1. Para 2 and 3 of the
office order are as follows:-
"2. Against the above 171 approved posts of Asst. Accountant
the following Sr. Clerks working in the pay scale of Rs. 1320-
2950 are posted to look after the current duties of the post of Asst.
Accountant without any extra remuneration....
*****
3. This arrangement is purely stop gap for carrying out day to day office work and will not accrue any superior claim for seniority or other benefit in the service matter." Digitally signed by RAKESH RAKESH KUMAR (underlining by me) KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.04.04 15:45:56 +0530
20. It is obvious from this document filed by the claimant himself that material contents of the office order dated 04.01.1990 ID NO. 19/2016 Jai Shankar Joshi vs. M/s Delhi Transco. Ltd. Page no. 8/19 Ex.WW1/3 have been concealed by the claimant. Hence, there cannot be any doubt that he has not come to the Court with clean hands and has concealed material facts. The written arguments filed by the claimant are virtually reproduction of the claim and no evidence has been discussed. No submissions in respect of any of the issues have been made in the written arguments filed by the claimant. The issue is, accordingly, decided in favour of the management and against the claimant.
Issue No.2
21. The burden of proving this issue was on the management.
The contention of the management is that the dispute has been raised after more than two decades and, hence, the same suffers from delay. In fact, all the authorities relied upon by the management pertain to this aspect only.
22. Admittedly, the order vide which the claimant was assigned the duties of Assistant Accountant is dated 04.01.1990. The present reference is dated 28.06.2013.
23. In the affidavit of the claimant filed as examination-in- chief, it is stated as follows regarding the earlier dispute decided by Sh.P. S. Teji, POIT:-
"10. That the deponent states that the deponent was not Digitally signed by aware of filing of the dispute by the Union neither the deponent was aware of day to day proceedings of this RAKESH RAKESH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.04.04 15:46:04 +0530 case.
ID NO. 19/2016 Jai Shankar Joshi vs. M/s Delhi Transco. Ltd. Page no. 9/19
11. That the deponent states that the DSE Union which had raised the dispute neither informed the deponent or any other workmen in the list dated 4.1.1990 nor the deponent was called for giving evidence in the matter.
12. That the deponent states that the deponent only came to know about this case, when an award had been passed in the matter and thus thereafter the deponent alongwith other workmen filed a Writ petition in Delhi High Court, for implementations of the award in respect of all 171 workmen including the deponent (Writ petition No.316/24 of 2006) but however the same petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court of Delhi vide order dated 1.12.2006 with direction to approach the Labour Court again (Proper forum) in this regard."
(underlining by me)
24. As per the claim, the Writ Petition No. 316/06 was filed by the claimant somewhere in the year 2006. It is obvious that from 04.01.1990 (when as per the claimant, he started performing the duties of Assistant Accountant) to 2006 i.e. for a period of 16 years, no action was taken by the claimant.
25. In Nedunagadi Bank Ltd. vs. K. P. Madhavankutty and others (supra) relied upon by AR for the management, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
"Law does not prescribe any time - limit for the appropriate Government to exercise its power under section 10 of the Act, it is not that this power can be exercised at any point of time and to revive matters Digitally signed by which had since been settled. Power is to be exercised reasonably and in a rational manner. There appears to RAKESH RAKESH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.04.04 15:46:10 +0530 us to be no rational basis on which the Central ID NO. 19/2016 Jai Shankar Joshi vs. M/s Delhi Transco. Ltd. Page no. 10/19 Government has exercised powers in this case after a lapse of about seven years of the order dismissing the respondent from service. At the time reference was made no industrial dispute existed or could be even said to have been apprehended. A dispute which is stale could not be the subject matter of reference under section 10 of the Act. As to when a dispute can be said to be stale would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. When the matter has become final, it appears to us to be rather incongruous that the reference be made u/s 10 of the Act in the circumstances like the present one. In fact it could be said that there was no dispute pending at the time when the reference in question was made. The only ground advanced by the respondent was that two other employees who were dismissed from services were reinstated. Under what circumstances they were dismissed and subsequently reinstated is no where mentioned. Demand raised by the respondent for raising an industrial dispute was ex-facie bad and incompetent"
(underlining by me)
26. Similarly, in Haryana State Coop Land Development Bank vs Neelam (supra) relied upon by AR for the management, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
"18. It is trite that the courts and tribunals having plenary jurisdiction have discretionary power to grant an appropriate relief to the parties. The aim and object of the Industrial Dispute Act may be to impart social justice to the workman but the same by itself would not mean that irrespective of his conduct a workmen would automatically be entitled to relief. The procedural laws like Digitally signed by estoppel, waiver and acquiescence are equally applicable RAKESH KUMAR RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA to the industrial proceedings. A person in certain situation may even be held to be bound by the doctrine of SHARMA Date:
2025.04.04 15:46:16 +0530 ID NO. 19/2016 Jai Shankar Joshi vs. M/s Delhi Transco. Ltd. Page no. 11/19 acceptance sub silentio. The respondent herein did not raise any industrial dispute questioning the termination of her services within a reasonable time..."
20. ... The conduct of the respondent in approaching the Labour Court after more than seven years had, therefore, been considered to be a relevant factor by the Labour Court for refusing to grant any relief to her. Such a consideration on the part of the Labour Court cannot be said to be an irrelevant one ..."
(underlining by me)
27. In Ramesh Kumar vs. Delhi Jal Board (supra) relied upon by AR for the Management, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that unexplained delay of more than 6 years in raising industrial dispute by workman disentitle him from any relief by the Industrial Tribunal.
28. Similar principles have been laid down in the other authorities (supra) relied upon by AR for the management.
29. It is clear from the authorities that although the Industrial Dispute Act does not lay down any time limit for raising the disputes, the dispute has to be raised within a reasonable time. What is a reasonable time would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. Unexplained delay in raising the dispute would non-suit the claimant.
Digitally signedRAKESH by RAKESH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.04.04 15:46:21 +0530 ID NO. 19/2016 Jai Shankar Joshi vs. M/s Delhi Transco. Ltd. Page no. 12/19
30. As noted above, no action was taken by the claimant for 16 years. There is no explanation for delay given bythe claimant in his claim, rejoinder, affidavit filed as examination-in-chief or even in his written arguments. Hence, the authorities are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. It is held that there is unexplained long delay in filing the present dispute/ claim. The issue is, accordingly, decided in favour of the management and against the claimant.
ISSUE NO. 5:
31. The burden of proving this issue was on the claimant. As noted above, in his affidavit filed as examination-in-chief, the claimant relied upon the resolution of the Union as Ex. WW1/5 and the demand notice sent by the union as Ex. WW1/6. In its written statement, the management has not specifically denied the factum of notice. It has merely stated that these are matter of record. Since the factum of notice has not been specifically denied, in my considered view, the same amounts to admission on the part of the management. Even otherwise, during the cross-examination of WW1, no suggestion was given that no notice was sent by the Union. Hence, the notice Ex. WW1/6 stands proved on record.
32. However, as noted above, the claimant filed an affidavit of Sh.Kuldeep Kumar, who claimed himself to be the General Secretary of the Delhi State Electricity Workers' Union. Significantly, he was not RAKESH KUMAR examined by the claimant before the Tribunal. There is no reason on SHARMA Digitally signed by RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA record why Sh. Kuldeep Kumar could not be examined before this Date: 2025.04.04 15:46:48 +0530 ID NO. 19/2016 Jai Shankar Joshi vs. M/s Delhi Transco. Ltd. Page no. 13/19 Tribunal. I am of the considered view that an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against the claimant for non-examining Sh. Kuldeep Kumar. The inference is that if Sh. Kuldeep Kumar had been examined before this Tribunal, he would not have supported the claim. In other words, the claim/ dispute is not espoused by the Union.
33. The claim is dated 08.08.2013. There is no document placed on record that Sh. Kuldeep Kumar whose signatures appear on the claim was, in any manner, connected with the Union on 08.08.2013. The authority letter filed with the claim mentions Sh. Kuldeep Kumar as General Secretary of the Union. However, it does not bear the signatures of Sh. Kuldeep Kumar. Even in his affidavit filed as examination-in-chief, Sh. Kuldeep Kumar does not say that he was an office bearer of the Union on the date the present claim was filed.
34. In his cross-examination, the claimant stated as follows:
"... I do not have any receipt of depositing membership fees of the union. It is wrong to suggest that I am not a member of the union. I do not remember if I had contacted our union for filing the present case. ... I do not remember the name of the union of which I am a member. It is wrong to suggest that I do not know anything about my union or that Digitally signed by RAKESH I am not a member of the same.".
(underlining by me) RAKESH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.04.04 15:46:54 +0530
35. After giving of the demand notice by the Union, apart from the name of the Union appearing in the claim, nothing is on record to show that the claim has been filed by/ through the Union.
ID NO. 19/2016 Jai Shankar Joshi vs. M/s Delhi Transco. Ltd. Page no. 14/19
36. In view of the above discussions, I am of the considered view that the claimant has failed to show that present matter/ claim has been espoused by the Union in any manner. The issue is accordingly, decided in favour of the management and against the claimant.
ISSUE NO. 6 & 7:
37. Both these issues are being taken up together since they are interrelated. Part (a) of the reference raises an issue whether the claimant is covered under the definition of 'Workman' under Industrial Disputes Act. In the written statement, no such objection has been taken by the management. However, it is necessary for invoking the jurisdiction of this Tribunal that the claimant pleads and proves that he is covered under the definition of "workman" under the Act.
38. There cannot be any doubt that the burden of proving that the claimant is covered under the definition of "workman" under the Act was on the claimant. In his written arguments, nothing is stated by the claimant in this regard. In fact, as noted above, the entire written arguments of the claimant are mere reproduction of the claim. Even the management has not stated anything about the issue, perhaps for the reasons that no such objection was taken by it in its written statement.
39. It is the case of the claimant in the claim itself that he retired from the services of management w.e.f. 31.12.2000. The claim, as noted above, is dated 08.08.2013. Hence, the claim has been filed by the claimant after his retirement. RAKESH by Digitally signed RAKESH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.04.04 15:47:03 +0530 ID NO. 19/2016 Jai Shankar Joshi vs. M/s Delhi Transco. Ltd. Page no. 15/19
40. I have found that in order dated 25.01.2024 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W. P. No. 18857/2022 (L-RES) Triveni Turbine Limited vs. Government of Karnataka & Ors., as reported in Indian Kanoon, it has been held as follows:
"1. The question that falls for consideration before this Court is:
"Whether the order of reference made under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act' for short) would raise a question of industrial dispute in the event the employee has voluntarily retired from service and has accepted the benefits of voluntary retirement, can be treated as a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the ID Act?"
*****
12. The reference made is without application of mind and without arriving at a prima-facie conclusion as to whether respondent Nos.2 to 52 come within the definition of "workman" under Section 2(s) of the ID Act when the jural relationship of the employer and employee came to an end and also without examining as to whether any dispute is in existence or the dispute is apprehended as mechanically referred to the matter for adjudication. The question of industrial dispute would arise only in the event that the employee is a "workman" within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the ID Act and the person who raises the dispute must be a "workman" within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the ID Act. Section 2(s) of the ID Act defines the workman as under:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,--
(s) "workman" means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any Digitally signed by manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, RAKESH RAKESH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.04.04 15:47:09 +0530 whether the terms of employment be express or ID NO. 19/2016 Jai Shankar Joshi vs. M/s Delhi Transco. Ltd. Page no. 16/19 implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person--
(i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or
(ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or
(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or
(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding ten thousand rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature."
13. The definition of the 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the ID Act include only persons who are presently employed or who have been dismissed or discharged or retrenched from service. In the Labour jurisprudence, there are three types of termination of service:
a) Termination by operation of law, i.e., retirement on attaining the age of superannuation;
b) Voluntary separation such as by way of resignation or opting for voluntary retirement;
Digitally
c) Termination by employer by way of dismissal, RAKESH signed by RAKESH KUMAR termination, etc., for the misconduct.
KUMAR SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2025.04.04
15:47:15
+0530
ID NO. 19/2016 Jai Shankar Joshi vs. M/s Delhi Transco. Ltd. Page no. 17/19
14. Settled legal preposition is that jural relationship of the employer and employee comes to an end in case of retirement, voluntary retirement, resignation.
15. In the instant case, employees who have voluntarily retired from service and having accepted the benefits under the voluntary retirement package announced by the management cannot be treated as workman as envisaged under Section 2(s) of the ID Act.
16. Under identical circumstances, in the case of Everestee Vs. District Labour Officer6 (Everestee) the Kerala High Court taking the definition of workman as defined under Section 2(s) opined that voluntarily tendering resignation pursuant to a scheme for voluntary retirement, (1999) II LLJ 851 Ker the resignation having been accepted by the management and all the benefits arising out of such resignation has been paid by the management and received by the employee, he cannot be treated as a "workman"
coming under Section 2(s) of the ID Act and held that the definition under Section 2(s) only includes who are presently employed, or who have been dismissed, discharged or retrenched from the service of the employer.
17. The Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of The Karnataka Lingayat Education, Society and others Vs. Siddappa G. Namba and others7 (Karnataka Lingayat Education Society), opined that there is no mention of a retired employee/workman to be included within the meaning of workman under Section 2(s) of the ID Act. The Division Bench of this Court while confirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Karnataka Lingayat Education Society has held that the definition of Digitally signed by RAKESH workman under ILR 2017 KAR 5139 Section 2(s) of the Act RAKESH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
would not include a retired employee/workman". 2025.04.04 15:47:21 +0530 ID NO. 19/2016 Jai Shankar Joshi vs. M/s Delhi Transco. Ltd. Page no. 18/19 (Underlining by me)
41. It is clear from the authority that after retirement, the employee ceases to be "workman" under the Act and thus, he cannot raise the Industrial Dispute. Part (a) of the reference is, accordingly, decided in favour of the management and against the claimant.
42. Coming to Part (b) of the reference, as per the reference, this part is to be answered only if Part (a) is answered affirmatively.
Since I have decided Part-(a) negatively, Part (b) of the reference does not require any answer. Even otherwise, in view of my findings on Part
(a) of the reference as above and issues no. 2 and 5, there cannot be any doubt that the claimant is not entitled to any relief. The claim is, therefore, dismissed. The reference is answered accordingly.
43. A copy of the award be sent to GNCT of Delhi for publication.
44. File be consigned to record room.
Dictated and announced in the open Court RAKESH by Digitally signed RAKESH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA on 29th March 2025 SHARMA Date: 2025.04.04 15:47:25 +0530 ( RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA )
Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal-II, Rouse Avenue District Court New Delhi ID NO. 19/2016 Jai Shankar Joshi vs. M/s Delhi Transco. Ltd. Page no. 19/19