Delhi District Court
Yashvir Singh vs Ryan International School And Ors on 25 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. ARUN KUMAR GARG
PRESIDING OFFICER : LABOUR COURT-III
ROUSE AVENUE COURTS COMPLEX : NEW DELHI.
CNR No. DLCT13-002791-2018
LID No. 328/2018
Sh. Yashvir Singh S/o Sh. Anand Prakash,
Mobile No. 931023721
R/o H. No. 109, Nangal Thakran,
Bawana, Delhi-110039
Through his AR Sh. Aditya Aggarwal,
Mobile No. 9891789459 ..... Workman
VERSUS
1.Ryan International School, Through its Principal Education Society, A-9, Sector-25, Rohini, Delhi-110085.
Through its AR Sh. Gaurav Bajaj, Mobile No. 9810037684 Email ID: [email protected].
2. Jagidsh Tours and Travels Through its Proprietor Regd. Office:-
B-1/568, 3rd Floor, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058.
Through its AR Sh. Rajeev Gupta Mobile No. 9818671765 Email ID: [email protected] ..... Managements Date of Institution of the case : 27.07.2018 Date on which Award is passed : 25.05.2026 AWARD
1. By this award, I will dispose off the present claim of Workman U/s 10(4A) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as LID 328/2018 Yashvir Singh Vs. M/s Ryan International School Award dated 25.05.2026 Page 1 of 36 introduced vide Industrial Disputes (Delhi Amendment) Act 2003.
2. Brief case of the Workman, as per his statement of claim, is that in July 2007, Management no. 1 had engaged him on the post of driver, after taking his trial test by making him drive a bus and that since the date of his engagement by Management no. 1, he was working under direct control and supervision of Management no. 1 in respect of timing of his work, uniform, travel route and sanction/ non sanction of holidays. However, in order to save its legal liability, Management no. 1 had shown him as an employee of contractors despite the fact that the said contractors had no control whatsoever over the services of Workman.
3. In fact, according to him, Management no. 1, being a holder of permit in respect of transport, has submitted a list of drivers, including the present Workman, engaged by Management no. 1, whereupon, an authorization card in the name of Workman was issued by Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi under the provisions of Rule 7A of Delhi Motor Vehicle Rules, 1993. In order to deprive the Workman of statutory benefits, it is alleged by him, Management no. 1 had not only shown him as an employee of contractor(s), but, it has also been changing the contractors from time to time.
4. It is further the case of Workman that Management no. 1 had engaged M/s Group 4, M/s Spark All Security & Allied Services Pvt. Ltd., M/s Ravi Security and M/s Jagdish Tours and Travels as contractors for the period 2005 to 2007, 2007 to 2011, 2011 to 2013 and from 2013 till date respectively and while two LID 328/2018 Yashvir Singh Vs. M/s Ryan International School Award dated 25.05.2026 Page 2 of 36 of the contractors namely M/s Group 4 and M/s Ravi Security used to pay salary of Workman in cash, remaining two contractors used to deposit the salary of Workman in his bank account.
5. The salary of Workman, according to him, was being paid by Management no. 2 in collusion with Management no. 1, in as much as, it was only a camouflage to show the Workman as an employee of contractor and not that of Management no. 1 despite the fact that he actually worked for Management no. 1 since the date of his engagement. The aforesaid act of Management no. 1, in showing the name of Workman as an employee of contractor(s), according to him, amounts to an unfair labour practice, in as much as, Management no. 1 has also employed some persons at the post of driver, who were doing the same and identical work of perennial nature, which was being done by the Workman.
6. It has further been alleged in the statement of claim that Workman had worked for more than 10 years serving Management no. 1 to the entire satisfaction of supervisory and managerial staff of Management no. 1, however, in order to employ fresh hands on minimal wages, Managements have joined hands in terminating/retrenching the services of Workman and had issued advance termination/ retrenchment notice dated 18.05.2018 on the basis of absolutely vague and false ground that for the year 2018-2019, there was shortage of students in the buses of Management no. 1 school and accordingly, school had decided to cut short some routes due to which the services of Workman were no more required.LID 328/2018
Yashvir Singh Vs. M/s Ryan International School Award dated 25.05.2026 Page 3 of 36
7. By serving the aforesaid notice dated 18.05.2018, according to Workman, Management no. 2, in connivance and collusion with Management no. 1, has attempted to violate the provisions of Section 25F, G and H of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is further alleged by him that though he is entitled to be regularized into the services of Management no. 1 since the date of his engagement and reserving his right to file an appropriate case in this regard, however, under the aforesaid circumstances, in order to save himself from illegal termination, he had earlier approached Ld. Labour Court by filing LID no. 271/2018, which was disposed of vide order dated 06.07.2018 as withdrawn with a liberty to file a fresh claim.
8. Subsequently, according to him, he has served a demand notice upon Management no. 1, while, sending a copy thereof to Management no. 2, with a bonafide demand for recall of termination/ retrenchment notice dated 18.05.2018 and seeking his reinstatement with full back wages alongwith interest and other consequential benefits, however, Managements have turned down his aforesaid demands. Workman has thus filed the present claim seeking a declaration qua termination/ retrenchment notice dated 18.05.2018 being illegal, arbitrary and against the cannons of law. He has also prayed for a declaration in his favour as an employee of Management no. 1 besides a direction to Management no. 1 to reinstate him into the job with effect from the date of illegal termination of his services i.e. 18.06.2018 with full back wages and other consequential benefits.
9. Both the Managements have appeared in response to notice of statement of claim and filed their separate written statements to the claim of Workman on 16.01.2019.
LID 328/2018Yashvir Singh Vs. M/s Ryan International School Award dated 25.05.2026 Page 4 of 36
10. In its written statement, Management no. 1 has categorically denied the existence of any employer-employee relationship between the claimant and Management no. 1, while, alleging that it was Management no. 2, who used to provide transport services to Management no. 1 with its own labour force, which used to work under direct control and supervision of Management. no. 2. It has further been alleged in the written statement of Management no. 1 that the claimant might have worked with Management no. 2, however, he had no concern whatsoever with Management no. 1. Management no. 1 has thus prayed for dismissal of claim of Workman against Management no. 1 with heavy cost, while, denying the receipt of legal notice dated 11.07.2018.
11. On the other hand Management no. 2, in its written statement has objected to the maintainability of the present claim under the provisions of Section 10(4A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as introduced vide Industrial Disputes (Delhi Amendment) Act, 2003, while, alleging that the present claim should have been filed by the Workman under the provisions of Section 2A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which have been given an over riding effect over the provisions of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
12. It has further been alleged in the written statement of Management no. 2 that filing of the present claim directly before this Court without first approaching the Conciliation Officer as per the provisions of Section 2A(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 renders the present claim of Workman liable to be dismissed. In the absence of compliance of mandatory provision, requiring the Workman to approach the Conciliation Officer prior LID 328/2018 Yashvir Singh Vs. M/s Ryan International School Award dated 25.05.2026 Page 5 of 36 to filing of the present claim, according to Management no. 2, this Court has no jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the present claim of Workman.
13. On merits, it has been alleged by Management no. 2 that the Workman had been in employment of Management no. 2 as a driver since 01.07.2013 until the date of his separation from the service and during the course of his aforesaid employment, he had remained under direct control and supervision of Management no. 2. Present claim of Workman against Management no. 2, it is alleged, is not maintainable, since, the Workman has already received a sum of Rs. 1,10,639/-, which includes his earned wages, payment in lieu of one month's notice, service compensation, bonus for the financial year 2018- 2019 and gratuity etc., towards full and final settlement of his dues, by way of direct transfer in his bank account. The Workman, according to Management no. 2, was duly apprised of the aforesaid fact by Management no. 2 vide letter dated 01.06.2018.
14. Having accepted the payment of his full and final dues without any objection, according to Management no. 2, Workman cannot be allowed to challenge his termination vide termination notice dated 18.05.2018, in as much as, services of Workman were lawfully terminated by Management no. 2 due to reduction in the number of students in the school of Management no. 1 situated in Rohini, Delhi in the academic year 2018-2019 and consequent reduction in routes of buses to be plied by Management no. 2 for transportation of students.
15. Management no. 2 has thus prayed for dismissal of present LID 328/2018 Yashvir Singh Vs. M/s Ryan International School Award dated 25.05.2026 Page 6 of 36 claim of Workman, qua Management no. 2, with exemplary cost, while, denying the receipt of legal notice dated 11.07.2018 and claiming the Management no. 2 be an unnecessary party in view of averments made by Workman in his statement of claim.
16. No rejoinder to the aforesaid written statements of Managements were filed by Workman despite opportunity and hence, on the basis of pleadings of parties, following issues were settled by Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 11.02.2019:-
(i) Whether there existed 'employee and employer' relationship between the claimant and the Management no. 1? OPW
(ii) Whether the services of the claimant were terminated illegally or unjustifiably by the Managements? OPW
(iii) Relief.
17. Workman has thereafter examined himself as WW-1 i.e. as the sole witness in support of his case and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.WW1/A along with following documents:
(i) Ex. WW1/1: Copy of aadhar card of Workman.
(ii) Mark WW1/2: Copy of authorization card for the driver issued in the name of Workman by the transport department.
(iii) Mark WW1/3: Copy of statement of bank account of Workman with M/s Andhra Bank.
(iv) Mark WW1/4: Copy of termination/ retrenchment notice dated 18.05.2018.
(v) Mark WW1/5: Copy of order dated 06.07.2018 in LID no. 271/2018..LID 328/2018
Yashvir Singh Vs. M/s Ryan International School Award dated 25.05.2026 Page 7 of 36
(vi) Mark WW1/6: Copy of legal demand notice dated 11.07.2018.
18. WW-1 was duly cross-examined by Ld. ARs for both Managements. During his cross-examination by Ld. AR for Management no. 2, Workman was confronted with the termination notice dated 18.05.2018 Ex. MW2/W1 and letter dated 01.06.2018 of Management no. 2 addressed to Workman which is Ex. MW2/W2. No other witness was examined on behalf of Workman despite opportunity and hence, on a separate statement of AR of Workman, Workman's evidence was closed vide order dated 12.07.2024.
19. Management no. 1 has however chosen not to lead any evidence in its defence and hence, on the submission of Ld. AR for Management no. 1, evidence of Management no. 1 was closed vide order dated 25.02.2026.
20. Management no. 2, on the other hand, has examined three witnesses in support of its case. Sh. Vimal Wahi, Proprietor of Management no. 2 has examined himself as M2W1 and has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.M2W1/A along with following documents:
(i) Ex. M2W1/1: Copy of transport operation agreement between Management no. 1 and Management no. 2.
(ii) Ex. M2W2/2: Second/ office copy of the appointment letter dated 01.07.2013.
(iii) Ex. M2W1/3(Colly): Office copy of advance notice dated 18.05.2018 to Workman alongwith copy of postal receipt and tracking report.
(iv) Ex. M2W1/4(Colly): Office copy of full and final calculation sheet endorsing payment thereof in the account of Workman alongwith copy of postal receipt LID 328/2018 Yashvir Singh Vs. M/s Ryan International School Award dated 25.05.2026 Page 8 of 36 and tracking report.
21. Sh. Arvind, Section Supervisor from EPFO, Regional Office, Delhi (West), was examined by Management no. 2 as M2W2. He has tendered the statement of Membership ledger of PF account no. DLCPM20125620000010372 in the name of Workman Ex. M2W2/A and KYC details of Workman Ex. M2W2/B in his evidence.
22. Sh. Atul, Social Security Assistant, EPFO, Regional Office Delhi(North), was examined by Management no. 2 as M2W3 and he has tendered the following documents in his evidence:
(i) Ex. M2W3/A: Copy of membership ledger of PF account no. DLCPM00224040000014145 in the name of Workman.
(ii) Ex. M2W3/B: Copy of KYC details of Workman.
(iii) Ex. M2W3/C: Copy of membership ledger of PF account no. DLCPM00233640000012773 in the name of Workman..
(iv) Ex. M2W3/D: Copy of membership ledger of PF account no. DLCPM20827090000010014 in the name of Workman.
(v) Ex. M2W3/E: Copy of summary details of Workman available with EPFO.
23. M2W1 was duly cross-examined by Ld. AR of Workman, whereas, M2W2 and M2W3 were not cross-examined by Workman despite opportunity. No other witness was examined on behalf of Management no. 2 despite opportunity and hence, on the submission of Proprietor of Management no. 2, evidence on behalf of Management no. 2 was closed vide order dated 25.02.2026.
24. Final arguments were thereafter heard on behalf of both the LID 328/2018 Yashvir Singh Vs. M/s Ryan International School Award dated 25.05.2026 Page 9 of 36 parties.
25. It is submitted by Ld. AR of Workman that from the material available on record, Workman has been able to prove himself to be in employment of Management no. 1, at the post of driver, since July 2007 until the date of illegal termination of his services vide retrenchment notice dated 18.05.2018 issued by Management no. 2. As a proof of existence of employer- employee relationship between the Workman and Management no. 1, Ld. AR for Workman has relied upon the authorization card Mark WW1/2, purportedly issued by the Transport Department of Govt. of NCT of Delhi under the provisions of Rule 7 of Delhi Motor Vehicles Rules, 1993, after Management no. 1, being a permit holder in respect of school buses, had allegedly shared a list of drivers, engaged by Management no. 1, with the Transport Department. Besides, according to him, Workman has been able to prove, through his uncontroverted testimony, that he had all along been working under direct supervision and control of Management no. 1.
26. He submits that Management no. 2 has categorically admitted the Workman to be in its continuous employment at least since 01.07.2013 until the date of termination of his services. Though, According to him, Management no. 2 has alleged the Workman to be in its employment, having no relationship whatsoever with Management no. 1, however, the alleged contract between Management no. 1 and 2, for alleged providing of transportation services at the school of Management no. 1, is sham and bogus and is a camouflage merely to deprive the Workman of his statutory benefits. Testimony of Workman, qua he being in direct employment of Management no. 1 and the LID 328/2018 Yashvir Singh Vs. M/s Ryan International School Award dated 25.05.2026 Page 10 of 36 contract between Management no. 1 and 2 being sham and bogus, according to him, has remained uncontroverted during his cross-examination.
27. The contract between Managements no. 1 and 2, according to Ld. AR for Workman, can very well be presumed to be sham and bogus solely in view of the fact that admittedly, neither the Management no. 1 was registered under the provisions of Section 7 of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, nor, Management no. 2 was holding any license in terms of Section 12 of the aforesaid Act.
28. He submits that the Workman has also been able to prove illegal termination of his services by Management no. 1, in violation of provisions of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, through a sham and bogus contractor i.e. Management no. 2, vide termination letter Mark WW1/4, in as much as, despite being in employment of Management no. 1 since the year 2007, Management no. 2 has merely paid the retrenchment compensation, to the Workman, only for a period of five years.
29. Even otherwise, according to him, admittedly, there was no compliance by Management no. 2 with Section 25F(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 despite the fact that the compliance of the aforesaid provision has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India to be mandatory for a valid retrenchment.
30. Termination of services of Workman vide retrenchment notice dated 18.05.2018, according to him, is also in violation of provisions of Section 25G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in as much as, Managements had neither displayed any seniority list in LID 328/2018 Yashvir Singh Vs. M/s Ryan International School Award dated 25.05.2026 Page 11 of 36 terms of Rule 77 of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, nor, have followed the principle of last come first out at the retrenchment of Workman on account of alleged surplusage, despite the fact that Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held the provisions of Rule 77 of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 to be mandatory.
31. Under the aforesaid circumstances, according to him, workman has been able to prove himself to be in continuous employment of Management no. 1 since July 2007 until the date of termination of his services vide notice dated 18.05.2018 and hence, the Workman is entitled to his reinstatement with full back wages, continuity of service and other consequential benefits.
32. So far as the issue qua maintainability of present claim in terms of Section 10(4A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as introduced vide Industrial Disputes (Delhi Amendment) Act, 2003, is concerned, Ld. AR for Workman has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Rajendra Singh Vs. SBI MANU/DE/1444/2017 to submit that in the State of Delhi, a claim filed under Section 10(4A) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is still maintainable irrespective of fact whether or not the Workman had first approached the Conciliation Officer or not. Ld. AR for Workman has thus prayed for an award in terms of prayer made by Workman in his statement of claim, while, relying upon the following judgments:-
(i) Jasmer Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Anr (2015) 4 SCC 458.
(ii) Rajendra Singh Vs. SBI 2017 SCC OnLine Del 8461.
(iii) Bhilwara Dugadh Utpadak Sahakari Samiti Ltd.LID 328/2018
Yashvir Singh Vs. M/s Ryan International School Award dated 25.05.2026 Page 12 of 36 Vs. Vinod Kumar Sharma Dead by LRs and Ors.
(2011) 15 SCC 209.
(iv) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Petroleum Workers Union (2018) SCC Online Delhi 8383.
(v) Power Grid Corporation of India Vs. A.B. Singh & Ors. MANU/TL/0395/2022.
(vi) Gaffar and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. MANU/ BH/0126/1983.
(vii) Raj Kumar Vs. Director of Education and Ors. (2016) 6 SCC 541
33. On the other hand, it is submitted by Ld. AR for Management no. 1 that Workman has failed to prove the existence of employer-employee relationship between himself and Management no. 1. He submits that Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. Mahendra Prasad Jakhmola and Ors. (2019)13 SCC 82 has laid down few principles to determine whether there existed any employer- employee relationship between the parties to a claim. Some of the relevant factors to determine the existence of employer- employee relationship between the parties to the claim, according to him, are the authority qua appointment, dismissal and initiation of disciplinary action against an employee, besides, the existence of control and supervision and the identity of the party making the payment of salary/ remuneration of the Workman.
34. In the case in hand, according to him, admittedly, not only the salary of Workman was being paid by Management no. 2, but, even the ESI and EPF benefits were being provided to the Workman by Management no. 2. He submits that Management no. 2 has also been able to prove, through the uncontroverted testimony of M2W1, that it was Management no. 2 who was exercising direct control and supervision over Workman, during LID 328/2018 Yashvir Singh Vs. M/s Ryan International School Award dated 25.05.2026 Page 13 of 36 his alleged employment with Management no. 1. On the other hand, according to him, Workman has failed to adduce any evidence, otherwise than his bald statement to the aforesaid effect, to prove that he had been working under direct control and supervision of Management no. 1.
35. He submits that Management no. 2 in the present case was not a contractor but was a vendor who was providing Management no. 1 with buses for transportation of school children. In any case, according to him, onus to prove himself to be in employment of Management no. 1 was upon the Workman, however, Workman has failed to lead any evidence to discharge the aforesaid onus.
36. He further submits that the Workman cannot be allowed to agitate the issue of contract between Management no. 1 and 2 being sham and bogus in a claim filed by him under the provisions of Section 10(4A) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as applicable in Delhi, and in case, he wanted to agitate the aforesaid issue, he was required to approach this Court under the provisions of Section 2A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He further submits that mere authorization card, purportedly issued in the name of Workman under the provisions of Rule 7A of Delhi Motor Vehicles Rules 1993 shall not be sufficient to presume the Workman to be in direct employment of Management no. 1, more so, when even its authenticity is not established by the Workman by summoning the record from the Transport Department.
37. On the contrary, according to him, Workman, in his own statement of claim, has alleged himself to be in employment LID 328/2018 Yashvir Singh Vs. M/s Ryan International School Award dated 25.05.2026 Page 14 of 36 through various contractors. The Court, according to him, cannot act upon the uncontroverted testimony of Workman, to record a finding qua existence of employer-employee relationship between the Workman and Management no. 1 without any independent corroboration, considering the fact that he was found deposing falsely qua his gainful employment. Ld. AR for Management no. 1 has thus prayed for dismissal of present claim of Workman with heavy cost.
38. Ld. AR for Management no. 2, on the other hand, submits that the present claim of Workman is not maintainable under the provisions of Section 10(4A) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as applicable to Delhi. He submits that the case of Workman is fraught with contradictions, in as much as, though, in his statement of claim as well as evidence by way of affidavit, he has tried to take a plea that he had been in continuous employment of Management no. 1 since July 2007, however, during his cross- examination, he has categorically admitted being in employment of Management no. 2 since 01.07.2013. He submits that the Workman has also admitted having received one month's advance notice dated 18.05.2018 and retrenchment compensation, in terms of provisions of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, at the time of termination of his services and hence, there is no violation by Management no. 2 of the provisions of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, while, terminating his services.
39. In any case, according to him, having received, without any objection, his full and final dues from Management no. 2 at the time of termination of his services, Workman cannot be allowed to pursue the present claim against Managements alleging illegal LID 328/2018 Yashvir Singh Vs. M/s Ryan International School Award dated 25.05.2026 Page 15 of 36 termination of his services. In fact, according to him, Workman has even withdrawn his EPF, meaning thereby, he has accepted termination of his services by Management no. 2.
40. So far as the plea of Workman qua violation of provisions of Section 25G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is concerned, it is submitted by Ld. AR for Management no. 2 that since all the employees were hired by Management no. 2 with effect from the same date i.e. w.e.f. 01.07.2013, no seniority list was required to be prepared by Management no. 2 and hence, Workman cannot be allowed to allege any violation of provisions of Section 25G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by Management no. 2 in terminating his services. Since, according to him, Workman has failed to seek any relief against Management no. 2, the present claim of Workman against Management no. 2 is even otherwise liable to be dismissed.
41. He further submits that the Court cannot pass any award in favour of Workman, acting upon the uncontroverted testimony of Workman, who was found deposing falsely qua his gainful employment during his cross-examination. He has thus prayed for dismissal of present claim of Workman while relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Moreshar Yadaorao Mahajan Vs. Vyankatesh Sitaram Bhedi (D) through LRs & Ors. 2022 SCC Online 1307.
42. I have heard the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have carefully perused the material available on record in the light of judgments relied upon by the parties.
43. Before dealing with the issues, settled by Ld. Predecessor of LID 328/2018 Yashvir Singh Vs. M/s Ryan International School Award dated 25.05.2026 Page 16 of 36 this Court vide order dated 11.02.2019, I would like to deal with the legal issue, qua maintainability of present claim U/s 10(4A) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (as applicable in Delhi) without compliance with the provisions of Section 2A(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, sought to be raised by Management no. 2, not only, in its written statement, but also, during the Course of final arguments, though, no formal issue to the aforesaid effect has been settled vide order dated 11.02.2019.
44. It is sought to be submitted by Ld. AR for Management no. 2 that the provisions of Section 2(A) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 shall have the overriding effect over the provisions of Section 10(4A) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (as applicable in Delhi) and hence, in view of omission on the part of Claimant in approaching the Conciliation Officer before filing of the present claim before this Court, the present claim file by him before this Court shall not be maintainable and consequentially this Court shall have no jurisdiction to entertain the present claim.
45. I do not find any force in the aforesaid submission made on behalf of Management no. 2. The issue qua maintainability of claim under Section 10(4A) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as introduced in Delhi vide Industrial Disputes (Delhi Amendment) Act, 2003, without following the procedure contemplated under Section 2A(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, even after Central Amendment Act of 2010, is no longer res-integra in view of authoritative pronouncement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Rajendra Singh Vs. SBI's case (Supra).
46. In the aforesaid judgment, it was categorically held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court that there is no repugnancy in LID 328/2018 Yashvir Singh Vs. M/s Ryan International School Award dated 25.05.2026 Page 17 of 36 provisions of Section 10(4A) and Section 2A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in as much as, Section 10(4A) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (as applicable in Delhi) and Section 2A of the aforesaid Act provide two different remedies to a Workman, who stands discharged/ dismissed/retrenched, for redressal of his grievance and there is no need for a Workman, before invoking the provisions of Section 10(4A) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to first approach the Conciliation Officer as per the provisions of Section 2(A)(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
47. It is further held in the aforesaid judgment that even if, it is assumed for the sake of arguments that there is any repugnancy between the aforesaid two provisions, by virtue of operation of proviso of Article 239AA(3)(c), Section 10(4A) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 being a law made by legislative assembly of Govt. of NCT of Delhi, which was reserved for consideration of the President, having received his assent on 13.07.2003 and stands enacted thereafter, would prevail over the Central Legislation. Relevant observations of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in this regard are being reproduced herein below for ready reference:-
"28. We also note that, so far as Section 10(4A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Section 2A of the enactment are concerned, they provide two different remedies to a workman who stands discharged/dismissed/retrenched for redressal of his grievance. Section 10(4A) enables a workman to directly approach the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal within a period of one year from the communication of the order of discharge/dismissal/retrenchment without taking recourse to the procedure prescribed under Section 10. On the other hand, by virtue of Section 2A, a dispute/difference between a workman and his employer LID 328/2018 Yashvir Singh Vs. M/s Ryan International School Award dated 25.05.2026 Page 18 of 36 connected with or arising out of discharge dismissal retrenchment or termination of service is deemed to be an industrial dispute. Furthermore, the workman is enabled to approach the Conciliation Officer within a period of three months from the occurrence and after expiry of three months from the date of so approaching him, the workman can make a further application directly to the Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute. That is to say, under Section 2A, the second option available to the workman does not have to await the references by the Conciliation Officer.
29. In view of the above discussion, we are unable to agree with the observations in the impugned order that there was a repugnancy between the two statutory provisions.
30. Even if it could be held that there was a repugnancy between them, by virtue of the operation of the proviso to Article 239AA(3)(c), Section 10(4A) being a law made by the Legislative Assembly of the Government of NCT of Delhi which was reserved for consideration of the President and having received his assent on 13th July, 2003 and stands enacted thereafter, would prevail over the central legislation."
48. In view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in my considered opinion, there was no requirement for the Workman, in the present case, to first approach the Conciliation Officer, as per the provisions of Section 2A(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before filing of present claim under Section 10(4A) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (as applicable in Delhi) directly before this Court. This Court, thus, has the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate the present claim of Workman on merits, even, without compliance by the Workman of the provisions of Section 2A (2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
49. Now, I shall proceed to decide the issues settled by Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 11.02.2019.
LID 328/2018Yashvir Singh Vs. M/s Ryan International School Award dated 25.05.2026 Page 19 of 36 Issue no. (i): Whether there existed 'employee and employer' relationship between the claimant and the Management no. 1? OPW
50. Onus to prove the aforesaid issue was upon Workman. As has already been observed hereinabove, Workman has alleged himself to be in direct employment of Management no. 1, at the post of driver, since July 2007. He has also taken a plea that in order to avoid its legal liabilities, Management no. 1 had shown his name as an employee of different contractors from time to time and lastly of Management no. 2, despite the fact that there was no valid contract between the two managements for providing of alleged transportation services by Management no. 2 to Management no. 1. Even if, according to him, there was any such contract between two Managements, the same was sham and bogus. It has further been alleged by him that he had all along been working with Management no. 1 at the post of driver.
51. Workman has however failed to produce any documentary or oral evidence in support of his aforesaid pleadings otherwise than by way of his bald and self-serving statements to the aforesaid effect. The sole document produced by him in support of his plea qua his being in direct employment of Management no. 1 is an authorization card, purportedly issued in his name, by the Transport Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi under the provisions of Rule 7A of Delhi Motor Vehicles Rules, 1993. Relying upon the aforesaid document, it was submitted by his AR that the said document, as per Rule 7A of Delhi Motor Vehicles Rules, 1993, was issued by the Transport Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, on the basis of a list of drivers engaged by Management no. 1, which was submitted by Management no. 1, being the permit holder in respect of school bus driven by LID 328/2018 Yashvir Singh Vs. M/s Ryan International School Award dated 25.05.2026 Page 20 of 36 Workman, with the Transport Department and hence, the said document is sufficient proof of his direct employment with Management no. 1.
52. I do not find any force in the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of Workman that the aforesaid document is sufficient to prove the Workman to be in direct employment of Management no. 1. A bare perusal of Rule 7A of Delhi Motors Vehicles Rules 1993 shows that the aforesaid Rule merely requires the holder of a permit to furnish, within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of permit, a list of drivers engaged by him to drive the aforesaid vehicle, together with their photographs and other particulars, so that, an authorization card permitting the drivers as per the aforesaid list may be issued by the State Transport Authority to the permit holder.
53. A bare perusal of aforesaid Rule further shows that it prohibits plying of transport vehicles without proper authorization card containing the name, photographs and such other particulars of the drivers as may be directed by the Transport Commissioner, and makes it mandatory that the said authorization card be displayed at some conspicuous place in the vehicle. The aforesaid provision, in my considered opinion, was incorporated in Delhi Motor Vehicles Rules 1993 for easy identification of drivers of the vehicles which might involve in any accident. Mere issuance of authorization card in the name of Workman, in respect of a transport vehicle owned by Management no. 1, in my considered opinion, is not sufficient to prove the Workman to be an employee of Management no. 1, in as much as, the aforesaid provision does not prohibit engagement of a driver, by the permit holder, through a Contractor.
LID 328/2018Yashvir Singh Vs. M/s Ryan International School Award dated 25.05.2026 Page 21 of 36
54. Even otherwise, Workman has failed to prove the issuance of alleged authorization card, by the Transport Department, in his name at the instance of Management no. 1 by leading any cogent evidence, in as much as, neither the original of the aforesaid authorization card was produced by Workman during his evidence, nor, the record qua issuance thereof was summoned by him from the Transport Department.
55. It is next sought to be submitted by Ld. AR for Workman that since, neither, the Management no. 1 was holding any registration certificate under the provisions of Section 7 of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, nor, Management no. 2 was holding a valid license issued under the provisions of Section 12 of the aforesaid Act, Workman should be deemed to be in direct employment of Management no. 1, while, holding the alleged contract between Managements no. 1 and 2 to be sham and bogus. In support of his aforesaid submission, Ld. AR for Workman has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Telangana High Court in Power Grid Corporation of India Vs. A.B. Singh and Anr (Supra).
56. I do not find any force in the aforesaid submission made on behalf of Workman. Issue, qua the consequences of non- compliance of the provisions of Section 7 and 12 of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, is no longer res- integra in view of authoritative pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Dena Nath v. National Fertilisers Ltd., (1992) 1 SCC 695, wherein, it was categorically held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that mere absence of registration certificate U/s 7 and the license under the provisions of Section 12 of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 shall LID 328/2018 Yashvir Singh Vs. M/s Ryan International School Award dated 25.05.2026 Page 22 of 36 not have the effect of treating the employees of the contractors as the employees of principal employer, in as much as, consequences of non-compliance with the aforesaid provisions are provided under Sections 23 and 25 of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. Relevant observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Dena Nath v. National Fertilisers Ltd., (1992) 1 SCC 695 case are being reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:
"5. This appeal arises from the decision of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated February 27, 1991 passed in Writ Petition No. 8872 of 1989. The Division Bench while deciding a batch of writ petitions followed its earlier decision in the case of Gian Singh v. Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India [(1991) 1 Punj LR 1] (Letters Patent Appeal No. 1215 of 1990). The Division Bench in the aforesaid case of Gian Singh held that if the principal employer does not get registration as required under Section 7 of the Act and/or the contractor does not get the licence under Section 12 of the Act for the persons who are appointed by the principal employer through the contractor, the only consequence is the penal provisions contained in Sections 23 and 24 of the Act and that the principal employer or contractor can be prosecuted under those sections, but the Act nowhere provides that such employees employed through the contractor would become the employee of the principal employer.
6. In the High Court judgment, under appeal, reliance was placed on behalf of the workmen on the views of the High Courts of Karnataka, Madras, Gujarat and Bombay in the cases reported as F.C.I. Loading and Unloading Workers Union v. Food Corporation of India [(1986) 2 SLR 454 : (1985) 50 FLR 50 (Kant)] , Workmen v. Best & Crompton Engineering Ltd., Madras [(1985) 1 LLJ 492 (Mad)] , Food Corporation of India Workers' Union v. Food Corporation of India [(1990) 61 FLR 253 (Guj)] and United Labour Union v. Union of India [(1990) 60 FLR 686 (Bom)] , but the LID 328/2018 Yashvir Singh Vs. M/s Ryan International School Award dated 25.05.2026 Page 23 of 36 High Court took the view that they were not applicable.
XXXX
12. From the above provisions it is clear that the Act serves twofold purposes: (1) regulation of the conditions of service of the workers employed by the contractor who is engaged by a principal employer and; (2) also provides for the appropriate government abolishing contract labour altogether, in certain notified processes, operation or other works in any establishment. Neither the Act nor the Rules framed by the Central Government or by any appropriate government provide that upon abolition of contract labour, the said labour would be directly absorbed by the principal employer.
13. The question arises when the Act does not provide for such a measure, but contents itself by merely regulating the conditions of service of the contract labour, can the Court in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, where the principal employer or the licence contractor violates the provisions of Section 9 (sic 7) or 12 respectively, direct that the contract labour so employed would become directly the employee of the principal employer.
XXXX
16. The decision of the Madras High Court in Workmen v. Best & Crompton Engineering Ltd., Madras [(1985) 1 LLJ 492 (Mad)] really arose out of an award given by the Labour Court in an industrial dispute. The industrial dispute had been raised by the workmen of the principal employer. They challenged the termination of service of workmen by the management as the management did not requisition the service of 75 workmen after October 16, 1978 on the ground that they were employed by the licensed contractor. This led to an industrial dispute and on a reference made of the said industrial dispute, the Labour Court rejected the contention of the management and held that the so-called contractor was a mere name-lender and did not hold licence under the Act and directed the reinstatement of the workmen with back wages and other benefits. This award of the Labour Court was challenged before the High Court by LID 328/2018 Yashvir Singh Vs. M/s Ryan International School Award dated 25.05.2026 Page 24 of 36 the management by a writ petition. The learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court took the view that the conclusion of the Labour Court that the labour contractor was not really a labour contractor, but he was merely acting as a tool in the hands of the management is not supported either by the pleadings of the parties or by the evidence. According to the learned Single Judge there was absolutely nothing to displace the weighty documentary evidence in favour of the management and therefore, he characterised the finding entered by the Labour Court to the contrary as being perverse and vitiated. The Division Bench in letters patent appeal reversed this finding of the learned Single Judge.
17. The High Court observed at page 497:
"In order to enable the Management to have the benefit of the contract labour, the Act has now legalised the employment of such contract labour, provided the intermediary contractor holds a valid licence and provided the Management also holds a valid licence as principal employer. This is subject to the prohibition contemplated under Section 10. There is no need for us to examine the content of Section 10 in this case. In order to regulate the employment of contract labour and to provide for abolition in certain circumstances, the said Act came to be passed. According to Section 7:
'(1) Every principal employer of an establishment to which this Act applies shall, within such period as the appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, fix in this behalf with respect to establishments generally or with respect to any class of them, make an application to the registering officer in the prescribed manner for registration of the establishment:
Provided that the registering officer may entertain any such application for registration after expiry of the period fixed in this behalf, if the registering officer is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time.LID 328/2018
Yashvir Singh Vs. M/s Ryan International School Award dated 25.05.2026 Page 25 of 36 (2) If the application for registration is complete in all respects, the registering officer shall register the establishment and issue to the principal employer of the establishment a certificate of registration containing such particulars as may be prescribed.' Under Section 12 of the Act, no contractor to whom this Act applies, shall undertake or execute any work through contract labour except under and in accordance with a licence issued in that behalf by the licensing officer. Sub-section (2) of Section 12 provides:
'Subject to the provisions of this Act, a licence under sub-section (1) may contain such conditions including in particular conditions as to hours of work, fixation of wages and other essential amenities in respect of contract labour as the appropriate Government may deem fit to impose in accordance with the rules, if any, made under Section 35 and shall be issued on payment of such fees and on the deposit of such sum, if any, as security for the due performance of the conditions as may be prescribed.' The combined effect of these two provisions in our view makes it clear that for a valid employment of contract labour, two conditions should be satisfied, viz., not only the principal employer but also the contractor should possess the requisite licence. In other words, the holding of licence by one alone will not enable the management to treat the workmen as contract labour."
18. The High Court of Kerala in the case of P. Karunakaran v. Chief Commercial Superintendent [1988 Lab IC 1346 : (1988) 72 FJR 248 : (1988) 1 Ker LJ 570] took the same view as was taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the judgment under appeal.
A similar view was expressed by the Delhi High Court in the case of New Delhi General Mazdoor Union v. Standing Conference of Public Enterprises (SCOPE) [(1991) 2 Delhi Lawyer 189].
XXXX LID 328/2018 Yashvir Singh Vs. M/s Ryan International School Award dated 25.05.2026 Page 26 of 36
22. It is not for the High Court to inquire into the question and decide whether the employment of contract labour in any process, operation or in any other work in any establishment should be abolished or not. It is a matter for the decision of the government after considering the matter, as required to be considered under Section 10 of the Act. The only consequences provided in the Act where either the principal employer or the labour contractor violates the provision of Sections 9 (sic 7) and 12 respectively is the penal provision, as envisaged under the Act for which reference may be made to Sections 23 and 25 of the Act. We are thus of the firm view that in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution merely because contractor or the employer had violated any provision of the Act or the rules, the Court could not issue any mandamus for deeming the contract labour as having become the employees of the principal employer. We would not like to express any view on the decision of the Karnataka High Court or of the Gujarat High Court (supra) since these decisions are under challenge in this Court, but we would place on record that we do not agree with the aforequoted observations of the Madras High Court about the effect of non-registration of the principal employer or the non-licensing of the labour contractor nor with the view of Bombay High Court in the aforesaid case. We are of the view that the decisions of the Kerala High Court and Delhi High Court are correct and we approve the same."(empshasis mine)
57. The aforesaid observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Dena Nath's case (Supra) were quoted with approval by Hon'ble Constitution bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SAIL v. National Union Waterfront Workers, (2001) 7 SCC 1 in the following manner:
"96. In Dena Nath case [(1992) 1 SCC 695 :
1992 SCC (L&S) 349] a two-Judge Bench of this Court considered the question, whether as a consequence of non-compliance with Sections 7 and 12 of the CLRA Act by the principal employer and the licensee respectively, the contract labour employed by LID 328/2018 Yashvir Singh Vs. M/s Ryan International School Award dated 25.05.2026 Page 27 of 36 the principal employer would become the employees of the principal employer. Having noticed the observation of the three-Judge Bench of this Court in Standard Vacuum case [AIR 1960 SC 948 : (1960) 3 SCR 466] and having pointed out that the guidelines enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act are practically based on the guidelines given by the Tribunal in the said case, it was held that the only consequence was the penal provisions under Sections 23 and 25 as envisaged under the CLRA Act and that merely because the contractor or the employer had violated any provision of the Act or the Rules, the High Court in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution could not issue any mandamus for deeming the contract labour as having become the employees of the principal employer. This Court thus resolved the conflict of opinions on the said question among various High Courts. It was further held that neither the Act nor the Rules framed by the Central Government or by any appropriate Government provided that upon abolition of the contract labour, the labourers would be directly absorbed by the principal employer."( emphasis mine)
58. In view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncements, in my considered opinion, reliance by Ld. AR for workman on the judgment of Hon'ble Telangana High Court in Power Grid Corporation's Case (Supra) is highly misplaced.
59. While relying upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd Vs. Petroleum Workers' Union (Supra), it is sought to be contended by Ld. AR for Workman that the alleged contract, if any, between the Managements, for providing of transportation services, by Management no. 2, at the school of Management no. 1, should be held to be sham and bogus, in view of the fact that the Workman was doing the perennial job of driver at the school of Management no. 1 since the year 2007 despite frequent change of contractors.
LID 328/2018Yashvir Singh Vs. M/s Ryan International School Award dated 25.05.2026 Page 28 of 36
60. I do not find any force in the aforesaid submission made on behalf of Workman, in as much as, the fact, that the Workman continued to work with Management no. 1 i.e. the principal employer for almost a period of 10 years despite frequent change of contractors, is merely one of the relevant factors to determine whether the contract between the principal employer and contractor is sham and bogus or not, however, the aforesaid fact, by itself, is not sufficient to arrive at conclusion that the contract between the two Managements is sham and bogus or to hold the Workman to be in direct employment of Management no. 1 school.
61. Ld. AR for Workman has also referred to clause 38 of the alleged contract between Managements to indicate that the Managements through the aforesaid contract had indulged in unfair labour practice, in as much as, clause providing for rotation/change of Manpower after regular intervals was incorporated to deprive the Workman of his statutory benefits. Even if, it is assumed for the sake of arguments that clause 38 of the Contract between two Managements smells of unfair labour practice, however, the aforesaid fact, by itself is not sufficient to hold the whole contract to be sham and bogus and to hold the Workman to be an employee of Management no. 1.
62. It is further significant to note in this regard that the facts of the case, before Hon'ble Delhi High Court, were altogether different from the facts of the present case. In the case before Hon'ble Delhi High Court, not only, the Workmen had been continuously working with the principal employer despite change of contractors after every two years, but, during continuation of their employment, even the employment of contract labour stood LID 328/2018 Yashvir Singh Vs. M/s Ryan International School Award dated 25.05.2026 Page 29 of 36 prohibited in the industry, wherein, Workmen were employed. In fact, various factors, to be considered by the Court in determining the existence of employer-employee relationship between the parties, have been pointed out by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. Mahendra Prasad Jakhmola and Ors. (Supra). Some of the relevant factors, pointed out in the aforesaid judgment, for determination of the aforesaid question are as follows:-
(i) Who appoints the Workman.
(ii) Who pays their salary/ remuneration
(iii) who has the authority to dismiss
(iv) Who can take disciplinary action
(v) Whether there is continuity of service
(vi) Existence of control and supervision i.e. whether there existed control and supervision.
63. Qua the last of the aforesaid factors, it was noted by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the aforesaid judgment that principal employer cannot be said to control and supervise the work of the employee, merely because, he directs the Workman of the contractor 'What to do', after the Contractor assigns/allots the employee to the principal employer, in as much as, the said control shall be considered to be secondary control exercised by the principal employer. Relevant observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the aforesaid judgment, are reproduced hereinunder for ready reference:
"23. From this judgment in Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills case [Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills v. Bharat Lal, (2011) 1 SCC 635 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 16] , it is clear that Test No. 1 is not met on the facts of this case as the contractor pays the workmen their wages.
Secondly, the principal employer cannot be said to LID 328/2018 Yashvir Singh Vs. M/s Ryan International School Award dated 25.05.2026 Page 30 of 36 control and supervise the work of the employee merely because he directs the workmen of the contractor "what to do" after the contractor assigns/allots the employee to the principal employer. This is precisely what para 12 of Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills case [Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills v. Bharat Lal, (2011) 1 SCC 635 :
(2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 16] explains as being supervision and control of the principal employer that is secondary in nature, as such control is exercised only after such workman has been assigned to the principal employer to do a particular work.
24. We may hasten to add that this view of the law has been reiterated in Balwant Rai Saluja v. Air India Ltd. [Balwant Rai Saluja v. Air India Ltd., (2014) 9 SCC 407 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 804] , as follows: (SCC pp. 437-38, para 65) "65. Thus, it can be concluded that the relevant factors to be taken into consideration to establish an employer-employee relationship would include, inter alia:
(i) who appoints the workers;
(ii) who pays the salary/remuneration;
(iii) who has the authority to dismiss;
(iv) who can take disciplinary action;
(v) whether there is continuity of service; and
(vi) extent of control and supervision i.e. whether there exists complete control and supervision.
As regards extent of control and supervision, we have already taken note of the observations in Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills case [Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills v. Bharat Lal, (2011) 1 SCC 635 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 16] , International Airport Authority of India case [International Airport Authority of India v. International Air Cargo Workers' Union, (2009) 13 SCC 374 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 257] and Nalco case [NALCO Ltd. v. Ananta Kishore Rout, (2014) 6 SCC 756 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 353] ."
64. In the case in hand, admittedly, Workman was lastly not only receiving his wages from Management no. 2, but, even the LID 328/2018 Yashvir Singh Vs. M/s Ryan International School Award dated 25.05.2026 Page 31 of 36 ESI and EPF benefits to Workman were also being provided by Management no. 2. Prior to execution of contract between Management no. 1 and 2, admittedly, Workman used to receive his salary as well as other benefits from other contractors and not from Management no. 1. Even the sum of Rs. 1,10,639/-, towards full and final settlement of his dues, was also received by Workman from Management no. 2 and had never returned the same before filing of the present claim, while, impleading both the Managements.
65. No doubt, Workman in his evidence by way of affidavit has categorically alleged that he had all along been working under direct control and supervision of Management no. 1, however, according to him, the said control and supervision was being exercised by Management no. 1 only in matters of timing of Work, driver's uniform, route for traveling and sanctioned/non- sanctioned holidays etc.. It is not even his case that the power to take disciplinary action as well as to dismiss the Workman from his services had either been vested in Management no. 1 or that the same had ever been exercised by Management no. 1. Rather, as per his own averments made in the statement of claim, the advance notice dated 18.05.2018, qua termination of his services, was in fact issued by Management no. 2 and not by Management no. 1. The nature of control and supervision allegedly exercised by Management no. 2, even as per the case of Workman, was thus in the nature of secondary control and supervision, as observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Mahendra Prasad Jakhmola's case supra, and the same is not sufficient to make the Workman a direct employee of Management no. 1.
66. Ld. AR for Management no. 2 has also relied upon clause 4, LID 328/2018 Yashvir Singh Vs. M/s Ryan International School Award dated 25.05.2026 Page 32 of 36 19 and 31 of the Contract between Managements to contend that the aforesaid clauses are sufficient to hold the aforesaid contract to be sham and bogus, however, I am unable to find anything in the aforesaid clauses so as to lead to the conclusion that the said contract between Managements was either sham and bogus, in as much as, the aforesaid clauses merely enable the Management no. 1 to exercise secondary control over the workers deployed by Management no. 2 at its school.
67. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court finds itself unable to record any finding in favour of Workman, qua existence of employer-employee relationship between the Workman and Management no. 1, merely, on the basis of bald and self-serving statements of Workman to the effect that he was appointed by Management no. 1 and had all along been working under direct control and supervision of Management no. 1. In fact, not even an iota of evidence, was led by him in the present case, to corroborate his aforesaid plea.
68. So far as the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bhilwara Dugadh Utpadak Sahakari Samiti Ltd. case supra, relied upon by Ld. AR for Workman, is concerned, in my humble opinion, even the aforesaid judgment is distinguishable on facts, in as much as, in the aforesaid case before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, Workman were being paid their wages at the rate, which, was more than the wages paid to the employees of the contractors and it was under the aforesaid circumstances that the Labour Court had come to a conclusion that Workmen therein were the employees of principal employer and the aforesaid finding of the Labour Court was upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
LID 328/2018Yashvir Singh Vs. M/s Ryan International School Award dated 25.05.2026 Page 33 of 36
69. In the case in hand, it has already been observed herein above, that admittedly the salary as well as other statutory benefits to the Workman were being provided by Management no. 2 and there is not even iota of evidence led on behalf of Workman to prove that it was Management no. 1 who had the power to appoint, take disciplinary action and/or to dismiss the Workman. As has already been observed herein above, the alleged termination notice in the present case had been issued by Management no. 2 and not by Management no. 1, which, indicates that Management no. 1 had no authority to dismiss the Workman from his services.
70. So far as the issue of exercise of direct control and supervision over the Workman is concerned, it has already been observed herein above that Workman had failed to prove that Management no. 1 used to exercise direct supervision and control over the services of Workman and the said control, if any, was merely secondary.
71. In view of the aforesaid discussion, issue no. (i) is hereby decided against Workman.
Issue no. (ii): Whether the services of the claimant were terminated illegally or unjustifiably by the Managements? OPW
72. Onus to prove the aforesaid issue was also upon Workman. Though, in his statement of claim, Workman has sought to challenge the termination/ retrenchment notice dated 18.05.2018, which, was admittedly issued by Management no. 2, however, he has prayed for his reinstatement with Management no. 1, while, alleging himself to be an employee of Management no. 1 and not of Management no. 2. He has alleged that the aforesaid LID 328/2018 Yashvir Singh Vs. M/s Ryan International School Award dated 25.05.2026 Page 34 of 36 retrenchment notice was issued by the Managements in collusion with each other.
73. It has already been concluded herein above that the Workman has failed to prove existence of any employer- employee relationship between him and Management no. 1 and hence, there was no occasion for Management no. 1 to terminate the services of Workman, in collusion with Management no. 2, much less, illegally or unjustifiably. Considering the nature of claim of Workman, wherein, he has claimed himself to be in direct employment of Management no. 1 and has prayed for all the reliefs only against Management no. 1, however, has failed to prove himself to be in employment of Management no. 1, issue, qua legality of termination notice dated 18.05.2018, admittedly, issued by Management no. 2, does not arise for consideration of this Court, in as much as, even if, the aforesaid termination order is held to be illegal, on account of violation of provisions of Section 25F and 25G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Workman shall not be entitled to any relief against Management no. 1.
74. In fact, Workman has failed to prove that through the aforesaid termination notice dated 18.05.2018, his services were terminated by Management no. 1 and not by Management no. 2, in as much as, in the absence of any employer-employee relationship between Workman and Management no. 1, there was no occasion for Management no. 1 to terminate the services of Workman vide retrenchment notice dated 18.05.2018.
75. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in my considered opinion, there is no need to deal with the submissions of Ld. AR LID 328/2018 Yashvir Singh Vs. M/s Ryan International School Award dated 25.05.2026 Page 35 of 36 of Workman qua illegality of termination notice dated 18.05.2018 on account of the same being in alleged violation of provisions of Section 25F and 25G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
76. Issue no. (ii) is thus decided against the Workman.
Issue no. (iii): Relief.
77. In view of my findings on issues no. (i) and (ii) herein above, Workman is not entitled to any relief.
78. Present claim of Workman, filed under the provisions of Section 10(4A) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is thus hereby dismissed against both the Managements.
79. Ordered accordingly.
80. Requisite number of copies of this award be sent to the competent authority for publication as per rules.
Announced in the open Court on this 25th day of May, 2026.
This award consists of 36 number of signed pages. ARUN Digitally signed
by ARUN
KUMAR GARG
KUMAR Date:
2026.05.25
GARG 16:31:52
+0530
(ARUN KUMAR GARG)
Presiding Officer Labour Court-III
Rouse Avenue Court, New Delhi
LID 328/2018
Yashvir Singh Vs. M/s Ryan International School Award dated 25.05.2026 Page 36 of 36