Delhi District Court
Degree Prasad vs M/S Sahni Rubber Industries on 13 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF RITU SINGH,
DISTRICT JUDGE & ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
PRESIDING OFFICER : LABOUR COURT - IV,
ROUSE AVENUE COURTS : NEW DELHI.
LIR No: 8/22
CNR No. DLCT-000065-2022
Sh. Degree Prasad,
S/o Sh. Sadhu Sah
R/o E-59/704, Kalander Colony,
Dilshad Garden, Delhi-95
....WORKMAN
VERSUS
M/s Sahani Rubber Industries
Through its Legal heir Smt. Snehlata Sahani
B-1, Jhilmil Industrial Area, Delhi-95
...MANAGEMENT
Date of institution of the case : 07.01.2022
Date of passing the Award : 13.02.2026
Decision : Allowed
AWARD
1.This is a reference no. 24(151)ID/37/NE/20/Lab. Ref./2021/6219 dated 27.12.2021, u/s 10 (1) (c) and 12 (5) of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which was sent by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, District East/North-East, Govt. of NCT of Delhi on a complaint filed by workman against the Management, wherein the following reference was to be answered :-
"Whether workman Sh. Degree Prasad S/o Sh. Sadhu Sah abandoned his services on his own 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 the respect?"
LIR No: 8/22 Degree Prasad vs M/s Sahani Rubber Industries Page No. 1/18 CLAIM OF THE WORKMAN
2. Notice of the reference was issued to the workman. Pursuant thereto, the workman has filed this statement of claim against the management stating therein that he had been working with the management as 'Machine Man' since 27.09.1981 and his last monthly salary was Rs. 14,842/-. He has alleged that the management had not paid his salary for month of February 2020. Therefore, workman through his Union filed his complaint before Delhi Government and Labour Office but he did not get any earned wages. The workman has claimed in his statement of claim that during the Covid-19 lockdown, the management remained closed and he was not paid his earned wages for said period due to which he suffered financial and domestic crisis. Workman has alleged that he was not given his earned wages of February2020 and management had paid some amount in month of May 2020, through cheque.
3. It is stated in the claim statement of the workman that on 01.06.2020, when Govt had relexed the restrictions imposed during lockdown and allowed the establishment to function then he had approached the management for resuming his job on 01.06.2020, but the management had not taken him on duty. The workman has alleged that management has not served any notice to him nor paid his salary dues before his termination and that he was terminated illegally and improperly, without any proper notice.
4. It is claim of the workman is that on 18.06.2020, workman along with co-workers (through their Union), had filed complaint in Labour office and on 06.07.2020, present workman along with LIR No: 8/22 Degree Prasad vs M/s Sahani Rubber Industries Page No. 2/18 co-workers sent a demand letter to the management through speed post seeking his reinstatement.
5. It is claim of the workman that he had filed an industrial dispute before the Labor Conciliation Officer on 20.07.2020 and Conciliation officer has repeatedly called the management for conciliation, but due to uncooperative attitude of the management, no settlement could be arrived at and thereafter, the present case was referred to this Court for adjudication.
6. It is claimed by the workman that neither any charge-sheet was issued against him nor any domestic inquiry was conducted against him, before terminating him and that even Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 was not followed and that the termination of his service is illegal, unfair and against the principles of natural justice.
7. Workman has claimed that after his termination, he had tried to find alternative employment but could not find the same and that he is unemployed since date of termination and is willing to join his duty again with the management.
8. Workman has challenged his termination as illegal, unfair and against the principles of natural justice. By way of present petition, he has prayed that an award be passed in his favor and against the management for his reinstatement in service and grant of back wages and other consequential benefits.
VERSION OF MANAGEMENT IN ITS REPLY
9. Notice of the statement of claim of the workman was issued to the management and pursuant to the service of the notice, the management had appeared before the Court and filed its written statement/reply.
10. Management in its written statement has stated that the LIR No: 8/22 Degree Prasad vs M/s Sahani Rubber Industries Page No. 3/18 present claim of the workman is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. Management has denied that it had terminated the workman. It is alleged by the management that its proprietor had died on 02.12.2018 and its factory where the workman was working, was sealed and its electricity was disconnected on 13.11.2019. Management has stated that the workman had retired from its services w.e.f 01.01.2021 and that management had issued his retirement letter dated 01.12.2020. Management has asserted that the workman had himself updated his date of leaving as 31.12.2020, while withdrawing his PF accumulations. Management has claimed that dues claimed by the workman in present case are false and the workman has been extorting undue money from the Management.
11. Management has alleged that the proprietor of the management had died on 02.12.2018 and that factory of the management was sealed by the SDM on 13.11.2019 and its electricity was disconnected on 13.11.2019.
12. Management has contended that the workman had not turned up for duty after lockdown and therefore, he is not entitled to any dues or any wages on the ground of "no work no pay". The management has denied that workman had reported for duty on 01.06.2020 and further denied that management had not permitted him to enter its premises to join his duty. Management has alleged that workman himself had not reported for duty on 01.06.2020 and he remained absent without authorization, since ever then. .
13. Management has denied the remaining allegations of workman levelled in his statement of claim and management has prayed for dismissal of present claim petition of the workman. LIR No: 8/22 Degree Prasad vs M/s Sahani Rubber Industries Page No. 4/18
14. Rejoinder to the written statement of the management was filed by the workman, wherein he has reiterated his claim, while denying the allegations of management levelled against him in its written statement.
15. Thereafter, vide order dated 23.09.2022, the following issues were framed in view of pleadings of the parties and terms of reference :
(i) In terms of reference.
(ii) Relief.
EVIDENCE OF WORKMAN
16. Thereafter, case was fixed for workman's evidence.
17. In order to prove its case, workman appeared as witness and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.WW1/1 wherein he reiterated his version on solemn affirmation. Besides this, he had also relied on the documents which are Ex.WW1/1 to Ex. WW1/4 (OSR), Ex.WW1/6, (OSR) to Ex. WW1/8, Mark WW1 (colly, two pages) and Mark 'A'.
18. The workman was cross-examined by AR for the management.
19. Thereafter workman's evidence was closed and case was fixed for management's evidence.
EVIDENCE OF MANAGEMENT
20. The management has examined Sh. Mukesh Sharma S/o Sh. K. D. Sharma, as MW1 who has filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.MW1/A wherein he has reiterated the contents of written statement of management. Besides this, he had also relied on the documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/3 and Ex. WW1/4. This witness was cross-examined by AR for the workman. It is relevant to mention herein that MW1 Sh. Mukesh Kuamr has LIR No: 8/22 Degree Prasad vs M/s Sahani Rubber Industries Page No. 5/18 also filed his additional evidence by way of affidavit Ex. MW1/A, wherein he has relied on document Ex. MW1/G which is the copy of original certified Standing Order of management.
21. Thereafter, management evidence was closed vide order dated 21.12.2024. Judgements were filed on behalf of management in support of its submissions and same has been perused.
22. Thereafter, matter was listed for final arguments. This Court has heard the detailed final arguments addressed by AR for both the sides and gone through the record, judgments filed and documents on record.
ARGUMENTS OF WORKMAN:-
23. Ld. AR for the workman has argued that services of the workman were illegally terminated by management on 01.06.2020 on ground of 'no work', without assigning any reasons, without any prior notice and without paying dues of his wages and that he was working with the management since 27.09.1981 on the post of 'Machine Man' with monthly salary of Rs.14,842/- and has prayed for reinstatement in services with full back wages and other consequential relief for the workman.
ARGUMENTS OF MANAGEMENT'
24. Ld. AR for the management had argued that after demise of proprietor of management on 02.12.2018, the workman had voluntary left his job in the post-lockdown period and that the present frivolous and vexatious petition has been filed by him on false allegations, without any material on record against the management and that the present petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost. It is further argued that the entire emoluments of the workman have already been paid to him, and LIR No: 8/22 Degree Prasad vs M/s Sahani Rubber Industries Page No. 6/18 no dues remain towards the management and further the workman has left his job himself.
25. The issue-wise findings of this Court are as under:-
Issue no. 1 (1) In terms of reference
26. As per the terms of reference, bearing no. F No. 24(151) / ID/37/NE/20/Lab.Ref/2021/6219 dated 27.12.2021, question referred to this Court for adjudication was -
'Whether the workman Degree Prasad S/o Sh.
Sadhu Sah abandoned his services on his own or his services have been terminated illegally and unjustifiably by the management'?
27. Thus, as per terms of reference, the question to be analysed and determined by this Court is whether the workman had 'abandoned' his services on his own or whether his services were illegally or unjustifiably terminated by the management.
28. The onus to prove the plea of 'abandonment' of services by the workman was on the management, as this plea was set up by the management and the onus to prove his illegal termination was on the workman, as it was his contention that management had illegally and unjustifiably terminated his services.
29. The claim of workman in his statement of claim is that he had joined the management on 27.09.1981 as 'Machine Man'. He has alleged that during COVID pandemic, the management had remained closed, pursuant to notifications by the Central Government (dated 25.03.2020) and NCT of Delhi (dated 23.03.2020).
30. The workman has alleged that when the restrictions due to COVID-19 were relaxed w.e.f. 01.06.2020, he had reported on duty to management on 01.06.2020, but the management had not LIR No: 8/22 Degree Prasad vs M/s Sahani Rubber Industries Page No. 7/18 allowed him to join his duty and it has been alleged that management had illegally terminated him from service, without any notice, without payment of earned wages of February 2020 and without payment of his legal dues. Workman had sent demand notice dated 06.07.2020 to the management.
31. On the other hand, the management has admitted in its written statement that workman was its employee. Management has denied that it had illegally terminated the workman.
32. The management has contended in its written statement that the workman had retired from his services w.e.f. 01.01.2021 pursuant to retirement letter dated 02.12.2020 issued to the workman by management. Management has alleged that the workman had updated in the online PF records the date of his leaving the management as 31.12.2020, due to retirement, while withdrawing his PF contribution and the management witness MW1 has relied on internet generated copy of EPF/PF record of the workman, which is Ex. MW1/1.
33. The next defence plea taken by the management in its written statement is that its factory was sealed by SDM on 13.11.2019 and its electricity was also disconnected on 13.11.2019 and in support of his submissions, the management witness MW1 Sh. Mukesh Kumar had relied on copy of the replies (Ex. MW1/3 and Ex.MW1/4) filed by the management before the Labour Office during the conciliation proceedings.
34. The main thrust of the management defence is that workman had not turned up to work in post-lockdown period. Management has asserted in its WS that workman had not reported on duty on 01.06.2020 and had remained absent from duty without authorization, ever since. MW1 has relied on copy LIR No: 8/22 Degree Prasad vs M/s Sahani Rubber Industries Page No. 8/18 of 'Chaspa notice', purportedly affixed by the management on its notice board and the said notice is Ex. MW1/2.
35. In the case at hand, management has admitted employer- employee relation with workman. Management has not disputed the fact that workman has been working in management since 27.09.1981.
36. The actual bone of contention between the parties is whether the workman had voluntarily left his job or whether he was illegally terminated by management and since management has set up the plea that workman had left his job on his own, the onus was on the management to prove the same.
37. From the perusal of the record, it is evident that while the management has contended that the workman had not reported on duty in the post-lockdown period and that he had remained absent from duty, thereafter without authorization, yet in the same breath, management has also admitted in its written statement that the workman had retired from its services on 01.01.2021, pursuant to retirement letter dated 02.12.2020 issued to him by management.
38. Thus, the defence taken by the management that the workman had volunatrily left its services in post-lockdown period and had never reported back on duty, is inconsitent and patently contradictory to the admission of the management that the workman had continued in its services till his retirement on 01.01.2021 and thus, the defence pleaded by the management of abandonment of job by workman, is not worthy of credence and does not inspire confidence of Court.
39. Thus, in view of the admission of the management in its written statement that the workman had been in its services until LIR No: 8/22 Degree Prasad vs M/s Sahani Rubber Industries Page No. 9/18 the date of his retirement on 01.01.2021, the claim of the management that workman had not reported on duty in post- Covid period is baseless. Accordingly, this Court holds that the management has failed to prove that the workman had left his services, on his own.
40. Now this Court proceeds to analyse the allegations of the workman against the management that he was illegally terminated by the management on 01.06.2020. Ld. AR of management has contended during final arguments that the workman has failed to produce his termination letter or any other documentary evidence, to prove his termination by management.
41. In order to discharge the onus of proving his illegal termination by the management, the workman has testified in his evidence affidavit that on 01.06.2020, when he had reported for duty to the management, the management had not allowed him to join his duty. The workman has been cross-examined on this point by Ld. AR of the management, but the testimony of the workman on this point has remained intact as Ld. AR of the management has not been able to discredit this witness, by bringing out any contradiction or inconsistency in his testimony.
42. Moreover, the deposition of the workman in his cross- examination that "when he had reported for the duty to the management, after the lockdown, he was told by the management that there was 'no work' in the management , finds material corroboration from the admission of the management in its letter dated 29.02.2020 (part of Ex. MW1/3 as Annexure-B) wherein management had admitted that its employees could not work as the electricity of factory was disconnected on 13.11.2019 and manufacturing process had ceased, due to seizure of factory LIR No: 8/22 Degree Prasad vs M/s Sahani Rubber Industries Page No. 10/18 licence. Thus, in view of admission of management in its letter dated 29.02.2020 (part of Ex. MW1/3 as Annexure-3), the deposition of workman regarding refusal of work by management on ground of 'no work', has been established.
43. In the case at hand, as already held, management has failed to prove its defence that the workman had voluntarily left his job. The workman, on other hand, has succeeded in establishing that his services were terminated by the management on 01.06.2020 and that termination of his service was without compliance of mandatory provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and therefore, the termination of his service by the management, was illegal and unjustified.
44. Before parting with this issue, it is relevant to note that during the course of arguments, Ld. AR of the workman had argued that the termination of the workman is also illegal as the management had failed to issue notice of absenteeism or conducted inquiry against workman for his absenteeism, before terminating him. In rebuttal, Ld. AR of management has relied on Diamond Toys Company (P.) Ltd. Vs. Toofani Ram and Anr., W.P. (C) No. 4501/04 to buttress his submissions that it is n ot obligatory for employer to serve notice or hold inquiry against workman, if he had been absent from duty.
45. It is also not disputed that in the present case management had not issued any show-cause notice to the workman regarding his alleged absenteeism from duty and this fact finds corroboration from testimony of MW1 who has admitted in his cross-examination that no show-cause notice was issued by the management to the workman regarding his absenteeism. Admittedly, workman was permanent employee of management LIR No: 8/22 Degree Prasad vs M/s Sahani Rubber Industries Page No. 11/18 as he had been in continuous employment of management since 27.09.1981 till his termination on 01.06.2020. Therefore, in view of the admitted facts that workman was a permanent employee of the management with approximately 39 years of services in the management, following observations in Management of Horticulture v. Hakoo & Jagar Khan in WP (C) No. 880/2004 decided on 21.03.2013 are relevant and are being reproduced herein: -
"17. The observation of the learned Industrial Adjudicator that the management is obliged to serve a notice and thereafter hold an inquiry into the reasons for the absence of the daily rated/muster roll/casual workers, in my view, is erroneous. A daily rated/muster roll/casual worker has no obligation to report for duty every day. He is completely free to report for work or not to so report. Therefore, if he does not report for duty on any given day, or continuously for any length of time, the management cannot raise a grievance and is not obliged to serve a notice or hold an inquiry against him. The management has the right to take the work from any other casual worker in case a casual worker, who has earlier been serving, stops reporting for work. The management is not obliged to wait for him and, in the process, let the work suffer. The situation would be different in the case of a permanent worker since, in the case of permanent worker, there is a binding obligation both on the employer as well as the employee, where under the employer is obliged to offer work to the workman and pay him his wages, and the workman is equally obliged to work for the employer for the wages that he receives. The management gets the right to serve a notice and to take action against a permanent worker on account of the said binding obligation of the workman. If a permanent workman does not report for duty continuously, the work of the management would suffer. The same cannot be said in respect of a daily rated casual worker on muster roll, as the absence of such a worker entitles the management to engage another person as a replacement. A daily rated/muster roll/casual worker is not bound by the rule of discipline which requires him to report every LIR No: 8/22 Degree Prasad vs M/s Sahani Rubber Industries Page No. 12/18 day for work, unlike in the case of a permanent workman. So, if the daily rated casual worker does not report for work, why should the employer be saddled with the duty to serve a notice upon him? As aforesaid, the situation would be different where the daily rated casual workman raises a grievance contemporaneously regarding his disengagement. In that case, his conduct would demonstrate his intention to keep his job as a daily rated casual employee."
46. Therefore, drawing guidance from the above-said judicial precedent, in the case at hand, since the workman was a permanent employee in continuous employment of the management for approximately 39 years, therefore, in terms of the judgment of Management of Horticulture v. Hakoo & Jagar Khan (Supra), it was incumbent and obligatory on the part of the management to serve notice of absenteeism on the workman, though admittedly management had not served any such notice on the workman, and thus, this further renders the action of management unjustified.
47. In view of the foregoing discussions and observations, this Court is of the considered opinion that management has failed to prove that workman had voluntarily left his services, while the workman has succeeded in establishing that he was illegally and unjustifiably terminated by the management. Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided in favour of workman and against the management.
ISSUE NO.2 RELIEF
48. The workman has sought relief of reinstatement in the service of the management with full back wages along with the continuity of service and all the consequential benefits.
49. The term "reinstatement" has not been elucidated in the LIR No: 8/22 Degree Prasad vs M/s Sahani Rubber Industries Page No. 13/18 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. II, 3rd Edition stated that, the word "reinstate" means to reinstall or reestablish (a person or thing in a place, station, condition etc.); to restore to its proper and original state; to reinstate afresh and the word "reinstatement means the action of reinstating; reestablishment. "As per Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, "reinstatement" means 'to reinstall, to reestablish, to place again in a former state, condition, or office, to restore to a state or position from which the object or person had been removed'.
50. In the case titled as Tapash Kumar Paul Vs BSNL & Anr, and reported as of JT 2014 (7) SC 589 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the court may either award the compensation or order for reinstatement in the cases which do not fall within the five categories, as described by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment. The relevant portion of this judgment is reproduced as under:
"It is no doubt true that a Court may pass an order substituting an order of reinstatement by awarding compensation but the same has to be based on justifiable grounds viz.(i) where the industry is closed;
(ii) where the employee has superannuated or going to retire shortly and no period of service is left to his credit; (iii) where the workman has been rendered incapacitated to discharge the duties and cannot be reinstated and/or; (iv) when he has lost confidence of the Management to discharge duties. What is sought to be emphasized is that there may be appropriate case on facts which may justify substituting the order of reinstatement by award of compensation, but that has to be supported by some legal and justifiable reasons indicating why the order of reinstatement should be allowed to be substituted by award of compensation.
In the instant matter, we are not satisfied that the appellant's case falls in to any of the categories referred to hereinbefore which would justify compensation in lieu of reinstatement. We thus find no justification for the High Court so as to interfere with LIR No: 8/22 Degree Prasad vs M/s Sahani Rubber Industries Page No. 14/18 the Award passed by the Tribunal which was affirmed even by the single Judge, but the Division Bench thought it appropriate to set aside the order of reinstatement without specifying any reasons whatsoever, as to why it substituted with compensation of a meager amount of Rs.20,000/ to the appellant."
51. In the case at hand, from the testimony of the workman, it is clear that he had already attained the age of 63 years as on the date of recording of his examination-in-chief on 27.01.2023 before this Court. The management witness MW1 had relied upon certified Standing Orders of the management, which is Ex.MW1/C and as per Clause-48 of the said Standing Orders, the age of superannuation for its employees is stipulated as 58 years. Since, workman has already attained the age of superannuation, therefore the case of the workman is covered within the categories as mentioned by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tapas Kumar Paul Vs. BSNL & Anr.. Accordingly, in these circumstances, grant of compensation in lieu of reinstatement shall be appropriate relief, in view of the guidelines in Tapash Kumar Paul Vs BSNL & Anr (Supra) and same shall sub-serve interest of justice in present case.
52. Further, as regards claim of workman for full back wages, the workman in his statement of claim has claimed that he has been unemployed since the date of his illegal termination by the management, despite his best efforts to find job and has prayed for grant of full back wages.
53. In the present case, the management has not brought any credible evidence on record to establish that the workman was gainfully employed during the period of his forced unemployment, after his illegal termination by the management. Even during the cross-examination by Ld. AR of the LIR No: 8/22 Degree Prasad vs M/s Sahani Rubber Industries Page No. 15/18 management, the workman has not been cross-examined on this point and the management has also not been able to show that the workman herein was gainfully employed elsewhere, by summoning relevant witnesses or proving the documents, as per law. Thus the claim of the workman that despite efforts to find job, he had remained unemployed after his termination, has remained unrebutted and uncontroverted.
54. However, it is also relevant to note that after first phase of lockdown imposed due to Covid-19 during 2020, another National Lockdown was imposed during the second wave of Covid-19 in 2021 and during this period the establishments/ factories were again closed and therefore, considering these factors, this Court is of the considered opinion that the workman is not entitled for grant of full back wages in entirety.
55. At the same time, it has to be borne in mind that altogether denial of back wages to workman, would amount to indirectly punishing him for illegal act of the management and in this regard the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard in Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya and Ors., (2013) 10 SCC 324 are relevant and the same is being reproduced hereunder:
"22. If the employer wants to deny back wages to the employee or contest his entitlement to get consequential benefits, then it is for him/her to specifically plead and prove that during the intervening period the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same emoluments. The denial of back wages to an employee, who has suffered due to an illegal act of the employer would amount to indirectly punishing the employee concerned and rewarding the employer by relieving him of the obligation to pay back wages including the LIR No: 8/22 Degree Prasad vs M/s Sahani Rubber Industries Page No. 16/18 emoluments."
56. Applying the abovesaid guidelines to facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that workman has established that he had been unemployed during the period after his illegal termination by the management and therefore, grant of reasonable compensation, in lieu of back wages, shall be appropriate relief in the present case.
57. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has discussed broad principles regarding grant of backwages in the case titled The Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Dr. Dharmendra Singh, 2016 SCC Online Del 4718, has held as under:-
"44. So far as grant of back wages is concerned, it depends upon case to case. The issue of payment of back wages on reinstatement of a workman has been discussed by this court in LPA No.24/2013 titled "Delhi Transport Corporation v. Sarjeevan Kumar" decided on 21 st January, 2013, the legal proposition in this regard was enunciated as under:-
(i) Payment of full backwages is not automatic on Labour Court/Tribunal granting reinstatement of workman.
(ii) The same principle is equally applicable in case an order of dismissal is set aside by the Labour Court/Tribunal on the ground of non-compliance of Section 25F of the I.D. Act.
(iii) The Labour Court/Tribunal shall give reasons for determining the specified quantum of backwages.
(iv) The burden is on the workman to show that he is entitled to full backwages or to a reasonable backwages and he is not gainfully employed during the period he was not in service of the management.
(v) Once materials are placed by workman on the above, the burden shifts on to the Management to disprove such claim.
(vi) In the event, the Labour Court/Tribunal fails to give any reason to quantify backwages, the High Court can go into the said issue and decide on on quantum.
58. Considering the length of service of workman in management w.e.f. 27.09.1981 till 01.06.2020, which is LIR No: 8/22 Degree Prasad vs M/s Sahani Rubber Industries Page No. 17/18 approximately 39 years and nature of his permanent employment therein, this Court deems it fit to direct management to pay to the workman lump-sum compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lac Only) as compensation in lieu of reinstatement, back wages (till retirement on 01.01.2021) and consequential reliefs.
59. Management is directed to pay the aforesaid amount within 30 days of publication of this award to the workman, failing which, the amount shall also be carrying an interest @ 8% per annum till the date of its realization.
60. Accordingly, the statement of claim of workman is allowed.
61. Award has been passed and Reference is answered accordingly.
62. Digitally signed copy of the award be sent to the Labour Commissioner for publication. The Award be also sent to server.
Digitally
File be consigned to Record Room. signed by
RITU RITU SINGH
Date:
SINGH 2026.02.13
16:21:19
+0530
Announced in the open (RITU SINGH)
Court on 13.02.2026 District & Addl Sessions Judge,
Presiding Officer Labour Court- IV,
Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi
LIR No: 8/22 Degree Prasad vs
M/s Sahani Rubber Industries Page No. 18/18