Delhi District Court
Rehmat Alam vs M/S. Trend Setters Books Ltd on 2 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ARUN GOEL,
DISTRICT JUDGE:PRESIDING OFFICER :
LABOUR COURT - X: RADC:
NEW DELHI
LIR No. 2319/19
Sh. Rehmat Alam,
S/o Sh. Mansoor Alam,
R/o H. No. 135, Gali No. 1,
Burari, Delhi-110054
Through
Nirmit Karamkar Ekta Kendra Union
(Regd. No. 3310),
All India U.T.U.C.,
34/38, W.E.A. Karol Bagh,
New Delhi-110005
.......... WORKMAN
Versus
(1) M/s Trend Setters Books Ltd.,
Khasra No. 675,
Block-A, Baba Colony,
Radhey Shyam Tyagi Marg,
Near Laxmi Paper Godam,
Burari, Delhi-110084
........... MANAGEMENT NO.1
(ii) M/s Trend Setters Books Ltd.,
56, Rahi Jhasi Road,
New Delhi-110055
.......... MANAGEMENT NO.2
Date of institution of the case : 13.09.2019
Date of passing the Award : 02.04.2026
LIR No. 2319/19 Page 1/25
A W A R D:
1. A reference No. F.24(78)/209/ND/Co-II/18/Lab/1609-1612
dated 26.06.2019 was received from appropriate government for
adjudication and disposal of industrial dispute between the aforesaid
claimant and the management by formulating the following terms of
reference:
"Whether the workman Sh. Rehmat Alam, s/o Sh. Mansoor
Alam has been received full and final settlement or his
services terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the
management, if so, to what relief is he entitled and what
directions are necessary in this respect?"
2. A notice of the aforesaid reference was sent to the workman for
filing of his statement of claim. On 12.12.2019 workman along with
his AR appeared and filed his statement of claim wherein it is stated
that the workman was appointed as senior karigar on 02.11.2011 and his
last drawn salary was Rs. 13,600/- per month. It is further stated in the
claim that the workman had unblemished record during his service
tenure as he never gave any chance of complaint to the management.
3. It is further stated in the claim that the management has
approximately 40 employees working in this unit and nine other units
operating in other locations are a) Trend Setters Books Ltd., b) Arise
India Publishing House, c) Lotus Publishers, d) Emerald Publishing
LIR No. 2319/19 Page 2/25
House, e) Peacock Publishing Company, f) Jules Publishing House, g)
Ideal Publishing House, h) Unistar Publications, i) Trend Setters Books
Ltd. Mumbai Branch. It is further stated in the claim that the workman
was not provided with minimum wages, pay slips, appointment letters,
leave cards, bonuses, annual promotions, attendance cards, PF, ESI, etc.
and that the management used to take work for more than 8 hours from
the workman and make him sign on the total amount while paying the
wages so that the minimum wages can be shown as payment in the
records.
4. Being aggrieved, the workman filed complaints 20.03.2018 and
22.03.2018 against unfair labor practices, violation of labor laws/rights
with the Assistant Labor Commissioner (North), Nimri Colony, Delhi.
It is further stated in the claim that the earned wages of the workman
was never paid on time, and a complaint regarding this was also filed
with the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Nimri Colony on 20.03.2018.
Thereafter, the management paid the wages for January, 2018 based on
the complaint, and now the wages for February and March 2018 are
pending, a complaint for which is also pending with the Assistant
Labour Commissioner, North.
5. It is further stated in the claim that the management hatched
conspiracy and wanted to give the workman a settled amount with the
intention of usurping his full service rights and outstanding wages,
LIR No. 2319/19 Page 3/25
while the workman through his union, has been regularly attending the
Labour Office for hearings on his complaints, however, the workman
never received his settled dues.
6. It is further stated in the claim that the workman first filed his
complaint with Asst. Labour Commissioner, Nimri Colony through
another union and during proceedings his salary for January 2018 was
paid. Subsequently, pressure began to be exerted by the union and the
management to receive a partial settlement, which led the employee to
suspect a collusion between the union and the management. Thereafter,
the workman after joining the Karmachari Karmakar Ekta Kendra,
raised his complaint and dispute with the labor office.
7. Being annoyed with the complaints made by the workman against
the management's illegal actions and violations of labor laws, the
management without giving him a fair opportunity, without paying any
unearned wages, without prior notice, and without providing a
settlement, terminated him from his services w.e.f. 26.03.2018.
8. Thereafter, the workman sent demand letters by way of speed post
and courier on 21.03.2018 and 9.04.2018, however, no reply was
received from the management. It is prayed that the Management be
directed to reinstate him to services with full back wages and
consequential benefits.
LIR No. 2319/19 Page 4/25
9. Thereafter, notice of the claim was issued to the management for
filing of written statement. Written statement was filed on behalf of the
management wherein it is stated that the workman joined employment
of the management office at 56, Rani Jhansi Road New Delhi 110055
w.e.f. 01-10-2012, and remained in employment till 08-02-2018 as
unskilled Helper. It is further stated in the written statement that he
worked at both the places as per requirement of the management,
however, due to sealing orders by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India,
the Burari Unit stood closed w.e.f. 28-02-2018. After the sealing of unit
at Burari, the workman through union namely "General Mazdoor Lal
Jhanda Union" approached the Management for Full & Final settlement
of dues. After negotiations, the workman through union out of his own
sweet will received the Full & Final settlement of dues amounting to
Rs.1,03,744/- on 14-03-2018 in presence of his trade Union
representative who also witnessed the said settlement.
10. It is further stated in the written statement that the trade union
informed to ALC Pusa Labour office about the full & final settlement of
dues vide their Letter dated 14-03-2018 submitted on 16-03-2018 in the
office of the Dy. Labor Commissioner, Central District Labor
Department, with a copy of the same to Respondent Management.
Hence it is prima facie evident on record that there was no dispute or
difference between employer & claimant regarding Full & Final Dues.
LIR No. 2319/19 Page 5/25
Now the workman has raised present false and frivolous dispute against
the management.
11. On merits it is stated in the written statement that it is submitted
that the management establishment worked for 9 hours (including 1
hour Rest) and always paid wages to the workman not less than the rate
of minimum wages notified by the Labour Deptt., Govt. of NCT of
Delhi. Accordingly the workman used to receive and sign the wages
register. It is further submitted that the case of minimum wages has
already been closed by the authority. It is further submitted that the
workman had already been paid all the pending dues (ie wages for Feb
2018, 8 days Amounting Rs.3,886/- one month notice pay Rs. 13,600/-
and other benefits like notice pay, service Compensation, Gratuity,
Leave, Bonus etc.) in full & final amounting to Rs.103744/- in
presence of Trade Union Representative representing "General
Mazdoor Lal Jhanda Union" and to this effect a letter of information
dated 14.03.2018 has already been submitted to Labour Office, Central
District, Pusa New Delhi on 16-03-2018 and now nothing due remains
with the management.
12. All the remaining contentions of the statement of the claim filed
on behalf of the workman are denied in the written statement and
prayed that the claim filed by the workman is liable to be dismissed.
LIR No. 2319/19 Page 6/25
13. Rejoinder to the aforesaid written statement has been filed on
behalf of the workman wherein he reiterated the reaffirmed the
contentions made in his statement of claim and denied that of written
statement.
14. On completion of pleadings of the parties, following issues were
settled on 08.04.2021:
1. Whether services of workman Shri Rehmat Alam S/o Shri
Mansoor Alam have been terminated illegally and/or
unjustifiably by the management without clearing his dues, if
so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are
necessary in this respect? OPW
2. Whether present claim has been filed without any dispute or
difference between employer and the claimant in view of full
and final settlement of dues amounting to Rs.1,03,744/- paid
to the workman in the presence of his Trade Union
representative? OPM
3. Relief.
15. Thereafter, the matter was listed for workman evidence. On
28.04.2022 WW-1 Sh. Rehmat Alam has tendered his affidavit by way
of Ex.WW1/A and relied upon the following documents: 1. Copy of
Aadhar Card of claimant is Ex. WW-1/1 (OSR). 2. Photocopy of ESI
Identity Certificate of claimant referred as Ex. WW-1/2 in affidavit be
read as Mark-A. 3. Copy of EPF member passbook of claimant referred
as Ex. WW-1/3 in affidavit be read as Mark-B. 4. Copy of demand
LIR No. 2319/19 Page 7/25
notice dated 21.03.2018 sent to management is Ex. WW-1/5 (OSR). 5.
Copy of postal receipt and courier receipt are Ex. WW-1/6 (OSR)
(Colly). 6. Copy of police complaint dated 26/03/2018 is Ex. WW-1/7
(OSR). 7. Copy of complaint to DCP (North) dated 27.03.2018 is Ex.
WW-1/8 (OSR). 8. Copy of complaint dated 27.03.2018 filed before
Joint Labour Commissioner is Ex. WW-1/9 (OSR). 9. Copy of letter
dated 09.04.2018 sent by the Union is attached herewith Ex. WW-1/10
(OSR). 10. Copy of postal receipt is Ex. WW-1/11 (OSR). 11. Copy of
courier receipt is Ex. WW-1/12 (OSR). 12. Copy of claim filed before
Conciliation Officer, Nimri Colony, Delhi is Ex. WW-1/13 (OSR). 13.
Copy of police complaint dated 10.09.2020 is Ex. WW-1/14 (OSR). 14.
Copy of postal receipts is Ex. WW-1/15 (OSR) and the matter was
adjourned for cross examination of WW-1.
16. However, on 02.11.2023 an application under Order XIV Rule 5
CPC has been filed for framing of additional issue, which was allowed
vide order dated 29.01.2024 and the following additional issue was
framed:
(i) Whether the management established sealed by the MCD i.e.,
Burari Unit stood closed w.e.f. 28.02.2018 due to sealing orders
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the management
having no control upon the closed unit, if so, what direction is
required?...OPM
17. Thereafter, WW-1 was cross examined at length by Sh. V. N.
Sharma, AR for the management. During cross examination he
LIR No. 2319/19 Page 8/25
admitted his signature on vouchers which were exhibited as Ex.
WW1/M1. There after vide separate statement of the workman,
workman evidence was closed and the matter was listed for
management evidence.
18. On 15.09.2025 management has produced Sh. Lakshya Bubna as
MW-1. He tendered in evidence his examination in chief by way of
affidavit which is Ex.MW1/A and relied upon the following document:
Certified copy of Board Resolution dated 16.04.2024 Ex.MW1/1 (ii)
Original show cause notice dated 15.01.2018 received by the
management from NDMC with regard to closure Ex.MW1/2 (OSR) (iii)
Copy of full and final payment details of Rs.1,03,744/- dated
14.03.2018 Ex.MW1/3 (which is now de-exhibited as Mark A) (iv)
Copy of the original signed cash payment voucher (page no. 1 to page
no.5) each dated 14.03.2018 for amounting Rs.3,886.00/-, Rs.13,600/-,
Rs. 34,000/-, Rs. 13,258/- and Rs.39,000/- (total amount Rs.1,03,744/-)
Ex.MW1/4 (colly) (page 1 to 5) (which is now de-exhibited as
WW1/MW1 (colly) dated 09.09.2024 containing page 1 to 5) (v) Copy
of the letter dated 14.03.2018 issued and submitted by the official of
General Mazdoor Lal Jhanda Union Ex.MW1/5 (which is now de-
exhibited as Ex.MW2/1 (OSR) dated 28.07.2025). He was cross
examined by Sh. Ajay Kumar Yadav, AR for the workman at length.
19. On 28.07.2025 management has produced Sh. H. S. Tyagi, as
LIR No. 2319/19 Page 9/25
MW-2. He proved that the original of letter dated 14.03.2018 was
prepared in his presence and the same bears his signature and the same
was exhibited as Ex.MW2/1. Vide separate statement of MW-1 Sh.
Lakshya Bubna, management evidence was closed. Thereafter, matter
was adjourned for final arguments.
20. Arguments heard from both the parties. Record perused.
21. Now, in the light of evidence available on record and submissions
made on behalf of both the parties, my issue wise findings are as under:
ISSUES NO.1 & 2 are decided together being interlinked.
22. The case of the workman is that he was working with the
management since 02.11.2011 as "Karigar" with last drawn salary @
Rs.13,600/-. The workman has further stated that the management was
not providing him with legal facilities like appointment letter, salary
slip, minimum wages, PF & ESI etc. The workman has also made a
complaint against the management to Labour officials vide letters dated
20.03.2018 & 22.03.2018 for not making payment of earned wages. It
is further stated that the workman had initially filed a complaint
through union but the union and the management were forcing the
workman to arrive at a settlement and the workman got suspicious and
approached the other union, however, subsequently the management
LIR No. 2319/19 Page 10/25
had terminated his services with effect from 26.03.2018.
23. The management on the other hand has not denied the employer-
employee relationship, however, it is claimed on behalf of the
management that the workman was working w.e.f 01.10.2012 and
remained in employment till 08.02.2018. The management has further
stated that the Burari Unit of the management was closed w.e.f
28.02.2018 by the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the
workman approached the management through union namely "General
Mazdoor Lal Jhanda Union" and after negotiation, the workman
received the full and final settlement amount of Rs.1,03,744/- on
14.03.2018 in presence of the Trade Union representative who
witnessed the said settlement.
24. The Trade Union further informed the Labour Commissioner office,
Pusa, New Delhi vide letter dated 14.03.2018 that full and final
settlement has been arrived between the parties. Accordingly, the claim
filed on behalf of the workman is not maintainable. Thus, the
management has not disputed the employer-employee relationship,
however, the starting date of employment is disputed and the
management has claimed the matter has been settled, however, the
workman has denied the same. As the management had taken the plea
of settlement with the workman, the onus is upon them to prove this
fact.
LIR No. 2319/19 Page 11/25
25. The management in order to prove the settlement has relied upon
the document Ex. WW1/M1, which are debit/credit vouchers, the same
were put to the workman during his cross-examination who admitted
his signature on the same. It is also relevant herein to mention that the
management during written statement had taken the plea that the
settlement has arrived and the workman had signed the said settlement
by placing on record copy of settlement vouchers. The workman had
filed a rejoinder to the written statement wherein it was subsequently
stated by the workman that the management had taken his signature on
vouchers which were blank or vouchers which were filled with pencil.
The workman has stated that he admits his signature on the vouchers,
however, the numbers filled in the vouchers are not correct and are not
accepted by the claimant. Thus, the workman is disputing the contents
of the Ex.WW1/M1. As the workman was disputing the contents of
these vouchers, the management should have examined the person in
whose presence these documents were prepared.
26. The management in their written statement had specifically stated
that the settlement which was arrived between the management and the
workman was done in the presence of the representative of the trade
union. The management had further alleged that the said letter was sent
by the trade union to the Assistant Labour Commissioner. The
management had examined MW2 Sh. H.S. Tyagi, the Secretary of
LIR No. 2319/19 Page 12/25
General Mazdoor Lal Jhanda Union to prove the letter sent by him
dated 14.03.2018 (Ex.MW2/1). The said witness during his evidence
has nowhere stated that Ex.WW1/M1 was executed in their presence.
The management had categorically taking the plea that the
representative of the union was present at the time of settlement and
execution of the Ex.WW1/M1 but the said witness has remained
completely silent on this aspect. This raises the doubt about the
genuineness of the WW1/M1. Perusal of the Ex.WW1/M1 also reveals
that they bear the signatures of two other persons of the management
i.e., one is Accountant of the management and another is Manager of
the management but the management has not examined the signatory of
Ex.WW1/M1.
27. The management had examined MW-1 Sh. Lakshya Bubna,.
During his cross examination MW-1 stated that he was present when
the matter was settled with the workman. However, he further stated
that the Ex.WW1/M1 does not bear his signature. If the said witness
was present during the execution of WW1/M1 and also he being the
Director of the management, the Ex.WW1/M1 should have his
signature appended on it. This further raises a serious doubt about the
genuineness of Ex.WW1/M1.
28. However, even for the sake of arguments if it is admitted that
Ex.WW1/M1 are genuine documents and the contents thereof are
LIR No. 2319/19 Page 13/25
correct, even then documents do not prove that the matter has been
settled between the workman and the management.
29. The Ex.WW1/M1 runs into 05 pages and it contains the details of
payment made to the workman. These are payment vouchers and are
not documents containing the terms of settlement under Section 2(P) of
ID Act, which deals with settlement, the same is reproduced as below:
"12. Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 reads as under:
"2. (p) 'settlement' means a settlement arrived at in the
course of conciliation proceeding and includes a written
agreement between the employer and workmen arrived at
otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding where
such agreement has been signed by the parties thereto in such
manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof has been sent
to an officer authorised in this behalf by the appropriate
Government and the conciliation officer.
30. Rule 58 of the The Industrial Dispute Central (Rules), 1957 herein
after referred as 'Central Rules' describes the memorandum of
settlement and Form H describes the prescribed mode in which the
settlement has to be done.
"58. MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT. -
(1) A settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation
proceedings or otherwise, shall be in Form H.
(2) The settlement shall be signed by-
(a) in the case of an employer, by the employer
himself, or by his authorized agent, or when the
LIR No. 2319/19 Page 14/25
employer is an incorporated company or other body
corporate, by the agent, manager or other principal
officer of the corporation;
1[(b) in the case of the workmen, by any officer of a
trade union of the workmen or by five representatives of
the workmen duly authorized in this behalf at meeting of
the workmen held for the purpose;]
2[C) in the case of the workman is an industrial
dispute under Section 2-A of the Act, by the workman
concerned.]
Explanation. -In this rule" officer" means any of the
following officers, namely :-
(a) the President;
(b) the Vice-President;
(c) the Secretary (including the General
Secretary);
(d) a Joint-Secretary;
(e) any other officer of the trade union authorized
in this behalf by the President and Secretary of
Union.
(3) Where a settlement is arrived at in the course of
conciliation proceeding the Conciliation Officer shall send
a report thereof to the Central Government together with a
copy of the memorandum of settlement signed by the
parties to the dispute.
(4) Where a settlement is arrived at between an
employer and his work- men otherwise than in the course of
conciliation proceeding before a Board or a Conciliation
Officer, the parties to the settlement shall jointly send a
copy thereof to the Central Government, the Chief Labour
Commissioner (Central) New Delhi, and the Regional
LIR No. 2319/19 Page 15/25
Labour Commissioner (Central) and to the Assistant Labour
Commissioner (Central) concerned.
31. The format of the Form H of the Central Rules
"FORM H
(See Rule 58)
Form for Memorandum of Settlement
Names of Parties:
Representing employer(s):
Representing workmen:
Short Recital of the Case
Terms of settlement
Signature of the parties.......................................
....................................
Witness:
(1) ................................
(2) ................................
*Signature of Conciliation Officer.
-------------------
Board of Conciliation.
Copy to:
(1) Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) .................
[Here enter the office address of the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) in the local area concerned].;
(2) Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) .............. (3) Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), New Delhi; (4) The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi.
*In case of settlements effected by Conciliation Officer.
-------------------
Board of conciliation LIR No. 2319/19 Page 16/25 + In case where settlements are arrived at between the employer and his workmen otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding."
32. Perusal of the Ex.WW1/M1 reveals that they are not as per form H prescribed under the Central Rules. Ex.WW1/M1 also doesn't contain the basis of settlement or the terms of the settlement. Rule 58 further prescribes that the terms of settlement has to be sent to the concerned authority for it being valid. It is argued on behalf of the management that vide letter dated 14.03.2023 Ex.MW2/1, the terms of reference has been sent to the concerned authority. It was further stated that the direction of Rule 58 is directory in nature and not mandatory and if the management is able to prove the settlement between the parties Though there is no compliance of Rule 58 due to technical reasons, even then, the settlement has to be adhered to between the parties. The contention raised on behalf of the AR that Rule 58 of Central Rules is not mandatory is devoid of merit. If the settlement is to be recognized by the court, the Rule 58 has to be strictly complied with. The contention which has been raised by the AR for the management was raised in the judgment titled as Om Prakash Sikka v. Labour Court, 1982 SCC OnLine Del 308 where in the court observed as as follows:
"4. I need not take up the first ground which had been decided by the Labour Court against the workman. In my opinion, this case can be disposed of on the short ground that the provisions of rule 58, sub-rule (4) have not been LIR No. 2319/19 Page 17/25 complied with. Sub-rule (4) of rule 58 says:
"(4) Where a settlement is arrived at between an employer and his workmen otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceedings before a Board or Conciliation Officer, the parties to the settlement shall jointly send a copy thereof to the Central Government, the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), New Delhi, and the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) concerned."
It has been held in decided cases that sub-rule is a mandatory provision. Its non-compliance will render the settlement illegal. It will not bind the parties thereto. In Workmen of Delhi Cloth and General Mills v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills [1970 L. & I.C. 1407], the Supreme Court has held that the settlement has to be in compliance with the statutory provisions. Hence where there is non-compliance with rule 58(4) the settlement is invalid.
33. Perusal of the above judgment reveals that Rule 58 is mandatory and has to be strictly complied with. Coming to the present case, the which the management is claiming that by virtue of Ex.MW2/1, the terms of settlement has been sent by the management to the labour officials. Perusal of it reveals that it is not as per Form H. It does not bear the signature of the management or the workman. It is signed by the official of the union (from whose membership the workman has withdrawn) and is addressed only to Assistant Labour Commissioner and not to the remaining authorities as required per Form H. The LIR No. 2319/19 Page 18/25 Ex.MW2/1 is not the settlement as per the rules. Hence, the management has failed to prove the settlement between the parties.
34. On the other hand, The workman has specifically stated in his evidence that his services have been terminated. Thereafter, he had sent demand notice and initiated conciliation proceedings which prima facie shows his termination. The evidence on record shows that the workman was working with the management for more than 240 days prior to termination of his services. Moreover, the management has not shown that they had complied with the provisions of Section 25F of the ID Act before terminating his services, hence, both these issues are decided in favor of the workman.
ISSUES NO.3.
35. The onus to prove issues no.3 was upon the management. The management has specifically stated that Burari Unit was closed in compliance of order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, the management has failed to lead any evidence on this aspect. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the management.
RELIEF:
36. The workman in this case has prayed for reinstatement and back LIR No. 2319/19 Page 19/25 wages with all consequential benefits. It was argued during final arguments that the workman was drawing salary of Rs.13,600/- per month at the time of termination of employment. As regards the back wages, the law is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of UP State Brassware Corporation Ltd. vs. Uday Narain Pandey, JT 2005 (10) SC 344, wherein it has been held :
"The Industrial Courts while adjudicating on disputes between the management and the workman, therefore, must taken such decisions which would be in consonance with the purpose the law seeks to achieve. When justice is the buzzword in the matter of adjudication under the Industrial disputes act, it would be wholly improper on the part of the superior Courts to make them apply the cold letter of the statutes to act mechanically. Rendition of justice would bring within its purview giving a person what is due to him and not what can be given to him in law. A person is not entitled to get something only because it would be lawful to do so. If that principle is applied, the functions of an Industrial Court shall lose much of their significance. The Court, therefore, emphasised that while granting relief, application of the mind on the part of the Industrial Court is imperative. payment of full back wages, therefore, cannot be the natural consequence."
37. The above noted observations have been reiterated in the case of Sita Ram Vs Motilal Nehru Farmers' Training Institute, JT 2008 (3) SC 644 ; Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, JT 2009 (9) SCC 396 and Ashok Kumar Sharma LIR No. 2319/19 Page 20/25 Vs. Oberoi Flight Services, 2009 XI AD (SC) 401.
38. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Management of Asiatic Airconditioning and Refrigeration Pvt. Ltd. vs. POLCX and Ors. reported in 2005ILLJ 79 has laid down a list of illustrative factors for determination of compensation in lieu of back wages.
39. While dealing with the relief of reinstatement. In case of Surender Kumar Verma Vs. Central Government Industrial TribunalcumLabour Court, New Delhi (supra), (1980) 4 SCC 443, it has been further observed as under :
"Plain common sense dictates that the removal of an order terminating the services of workmen must ordinarily lead to the reinstatement of the services of the workmen. It is as if the order has never been, and so it must ordinarily lead to back wages too. But there may be exceptional circumstances which make it impossible or wholly inequitable vis-a-vis the employer and workmen to direct reinstatement with full back wages. For instance, the industry might have closed down or might be in severe financial doldrums; the workmen concerned might have secured better or other employment elsewhere and so on. In such situations, there is a vestige of discretion left in the court to make appropriate consequential orders. The court may deny the relief of award of full back wages where that would place an impossible burden on the employer. In such LIR No. 2319/19 Page 21/25 and other exceptional cases the court may mould the rel The workman in this case has prayed for reinstatement and back wages with all consequential benefits. It was argued during final arguments that the workman was drawing salary of Rs.13,900/- per month at the time of termination of employment. As regards the back wages, the law is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of UP State Brassware Corporation Ltd. vs. Uday Narain Pandey, JT 2005 (10) SC 344, wherein it has been held :
"The Industrial Courts while adjudicating on disputes between the management and the workman, therefore, must taken such decisions which would be in consonance with the purpose the law seeks to achieve. When justice is the buzzword in the matter of adjudication under the Industrial disputes act, it would be wholly improper on the part of the superior Courts to make them apply the cold letter of the statutes to act mechanically. Rendition of justice would bring within its purview giving a person what is due to him and not what can be given to him in law. A person is not entitled to get something only because it would be lawful to do so. If that principle is applied, the functions of an Industrial Court shall lose much of their significance. The Court, therefore, emphasised that while granting relief, application of the mind on the part of the Industrial Court is imperative. payment of full back wages, therefore, cannot be the natural consequence."
40. The above noted observations have been reiterated in the case of Sita Ram Vs Motilal Nehru Farmers' Training Institute, JT 2008 LIR No. 2319/19 Page 22/25 (3) SC 644 ; Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, JT 2009 (9) SCC 396 and Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. Oberoi Flight Services, 2009 XI AD (SC) 401.
41. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Management of Asiatic Airconditioning and Refrigeration Pvt. Ltd. vs. POLCX and Ors. reported in 2005ILLJ 79 has laid down a list of illustrative factors for determination of compensation in lieu of back wages.
42. While dealing with the relief of reinstatement. In case of Surender Kumar Verma Vs. Central Government Industrial TribunalcumLabour Court, New Delhi (supra), (1980) 4 SCC 443, it has been further observed as under :
"Plain common sense dictates that the removal of an order terminating the services of workmen must ordinarily lead to the reinstatement of the services of the workmen. It is as if the order has never been, and so it must ordinarily lead to back wages too. But there may be exceptional circumstances which make it impossible or wholly inequitable vis-a-vis the employer and workmen to direct reinstatement with full back wages. For instance, the industry might have closed down or might be in severe financial doldrums; the workmen concerned might have secured better or other employment elsewhere and so on. In such situations, there is a vestige of discretion left in the LIR No. 2319/19 Page 23/25 court to make appropriate consequential orders. The court may deny the relief of award of full back wages where that would place an impossible burden on the employer. In such and other exceptional cases the court may mould the relief, but, ordinarily the relief to be awarded must be reinstatement with full back wages. That relief must be awarded where no special impediment in the way of awarding the relief is clearly shown. True, occasional hardship may be caused to an employer but we must remember that, more often than not, comparatively far greater hardship is certain to be caused to the workmen if the relief is denied than to the employer if the relief is granted."
43. In view of the above stated facts and law, the court is of the considered opinion that reinstatement of the workman could not be justified as the management has claimed closure of their unit. The justice would be served by granting him lump-sum compensation instead of reinstatement. Taking into account, the period of the services of the workman, the nature of duties performed by him and other surrounding circumstances, an award of Rs.1,25,000/- is granted in favour of the workman and against the management which includes the cost of litigation.
44. The management is directed to pay the said amount of award within a period of one month from the date of publication of award failing which the management shall be liable to pay an interest of 9% per annum from the date, it becomes due and till realization order LIR No. 2319/19 Page 24/25 accordingly.
45. In view of my above discussion, the claim of the workman is disposed of. The present reference stands answered accordingly.
46. A copy of the award be sent to the appropriate Government for its publications as per rules.
47. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court
on Dated: 02.04.2026 (Arun Goel)
Presiding Officer, Labour Court - X
Rouse Avenue Courts
New Delhi: 02.04.2026
Digitally
signed by
ARUN
ARUN GOEL
GOEL Date:
2026.04.08
15:42:15
+0530
LIR No. 2319/19 Page 25/25