Delhi District Court
Shobha vs M/S Amazon Transportation Services ... on 30 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF Dr. SURENDER MOHIT SINGH
PRESIDING OFFICER: LABOUR COURT-08
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS: NEW DELHI
LIR No. 198/24
CNR No. DLCT13-000634-2024
In the matter of:
Smt. Shobha
w/o Sh. Jai Shankar,
R/o A-9, S/F, Bada Mohalla,
Devli Marg, Khanpur, New Delhi-110062.
Through:
Samast Delhi Karamchari Union,
52-C, Okhla, Ph-3, New Delhi-110020.
...Workman
Versus
1.M/s Amazon Transportation Service Pvt. Ltd., Ground floor, Eros Plaza, Eros Corporate Centre, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019.
2. M/s G4S Secure Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., C-16, Block-C, Community Centre, Janakpuri Behind Janak Cinema, New Delhi-110065.
...Managements
Date of Institution : 09.02.2024
Date of Award : 30.01.2026
AWAR D
1. Reference under Section 10(1)(c) read with Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been received from Deputy Labour Commissioner, South-East District, Labour Department, Labour Welfare Centre, Bal Mukund Khand, Giri Nagar, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019 setting out following dispute for adjudication by the Court:
LIR 198/24 SHOBHA VS. M/S AMAZON TRANSPORTATION SERVICE PVT. LTD. 1/21 "Whether the services of workman Smt. Shobha W/o Sh. Jai Shankar, aged 42 years, mobile no. 9958244492, have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management; and if so, to what relief is she entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"
2. The present industrial dispute arises out of the alleged illegal termination of the services of the claimant by the managements. The claimant alleges that she was working with the management no.2 on the post of "Lady Guard" since 11.12.2007 and her last drawn salary was Rs.14,842/- p.m. Management no.2 did not provide any appointment letter and deputed her at the site of management no.1. Management no.1 is the principle employer and management no.2 is the service provider and management no.1 had given contract of manpower to management no.2. She was working under the supervision and control of both the managements. She used to work 12 hours per day but management did not pay over time wages to her. Management no.1 did not provide any appointment letter, HRA, pay slip, leave book etc. to her. Management no.2 illegally terminated her services on 19.03.2020 on the direction of management no.1 without any rhyme or reason and without conducted any domestic enquiry violating the provisions of section 25F and G of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. After termination of her services on 06.01.2023 she served a demand notice but managements did not pay any heed to it. Subsequently, she approached the Conciliation Officer but no settlement was arrived.
LIR 198/24 SHOBHA VS. M/S AMAZON TRANSPORTATION SERVICE PVT. LTD. 2/21
3. Since termination, she is unemployed and facing hardships. The claimant prayed for reinstatement in service with full back wages with other consequential benefits.
4. Management no.1 i.e. M/s Amazon Transportation Services Pvt. Ltd. filed written statement contending that claimant was employed by management no.2 vide appointment letter dated 11.12.2007 as "Lady Guard" and there is no employer-employee relationship between claimant and management no.1. Claimant herself abandoned her duties since 19.03.2020 and management no.2 called the claimant several times to resume her duties, however, she did not do so. It is prayed that present claim be dismissed.
5. Management no.2 i.e. M/s G4S Secure Solution Pvt. Ltd. also filed written statement contending that claimant has been absenting from duties unauthorizedly from 19.03.2020 and failed to report for duties despite called upon. Claimant is still free to report for work and shall be provided work wherever it is available in Delhi NCR subject to provisions of PSARA, 2005 and claimant will not be entitled for any wages w.e.f 19.03.2020 as she has not performed any work with the management. Claimant is gainfully employed and prayed that present claim be dismissed.
6. Thereafter, claimant filed rejoinder denied the averments made in WS of managements. After completion of pleadings following issues were settled on 09.04.2025:
1. Whether the services of the workman were terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management no.2? OPW
2. Whether there exist no any employer-employee LIR 198/24 SHOBHA VS. M/S AMAZON TRANSPORTATION SERVICE PVT. LTD. 3/21 relation between management no.1 and workman? OPM-1
3. Whether the workman has absented from duty unauthorisedly w.e.f 19.03.2020? OPM-2
4. Relief.
7. Ms. Shobha examined herself as WW1 and tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.WW1/A and relied upon following documents:
Sr. No. Identification Description Mark
1. Ex.WW1/1 Office copy of demand notice dated 05.01.2023.
2. Ex.WW1/2 and Original postal receipts.Ex.WW1/3
3. Ex.WW1/4 Office copy of statement of claim filed before conciliation officer.
4. Mark A Photocopy of I-card.
8. Workman was cross-examined at length by AR for the managements. Relevant extract of her cross-examination are as under:
"I have not filed postal traking report w.r.t Ex.WW-1/1 in the court record...It is correct that document Ex.WW1/4, statement of claim does ot bear any receiving stamp from the Labour Office...I have not signed any contract at the time of appointment...It is correct that I have not placed on record to show that management was taking work from me for 12 hours...The management has not issued any termination to me for my alleged termination dated 19.03.2020.
It is correct that I have not filed any document on record to show my LIR 198/24 SHOBHA VS. M/S AMAZON TRANSPORTATION SERVICE PVT. LTD. 4/21 employment with management no.1. The management no.2 used to pay my salary and other legal benefits. It is correct that I have not filed any document on record to shwo that the management no.1 has given direction to management no.2 to terminate my services. It is correct that I have not filed any tracking report to show that the demand notice has been served upon management no.1. Vol. I have filed the postal receipt".
9. Thereafter, on 08.01.2025, WE was closed and matter was listed for ME.
10. Management no.1 examined Sh. Mohit Gaur who deposed as M1W1. He has relied upon following documents:
Sr. No. Identification Mark Description
1. Ex.M1W1/1 Authority letter.
2. Ex.M1W1/2 True copy of resolution.
3. Mark A Copy of master service agreement.
4. Mark B Copy of statement of account.
5. Mark D (colly) Copy of notice.
6. Mark E Copy of contract for employment.
7. Mark C Copy of unit register.
11. M1W1 was cross-examined at length by AR for workman. Relevant extract of his cross-examination are as under:
"I am working with M-1 since 03.09.2018 as a Zonal Manager, Security & Loss Prevention. I do not know how many employees deputed by M-2 in M-1. I do not know whether M-1 or M-2 used to LIR 198/24 SHOBHA VS. M/S AMAZON TRANSPORTATION SERVICE PVT. LTD. 5/21 maintain the record of workman. The workman was the employee of M-2. It is correct that the contract of employement (mark E) was not signed by workman in my presence... I am not sure on what basis I had written in my evidence affidavit regarding the abondonment of job by workman might be informed by M-2 and on that basis, I stated so in my affidavit. I have not checked the records of M-2 regarding abandonment of job by workman...The M-1 has not sent any letter to workman for calling her duty. It is correct that there is no signature of any person of M-2 on Mark D.
12. Thereafter on 16.04.2025, ME qua M-1 was closed.
13. Management no.2 examined Sh. Ghanshyam Singh Sisodiya who deposed as M2W1. He has relied upon Mark A i.e. photocopy of contract of employment dated 11.12.2007.
14. M2W1 was cross-examined at length by AR for workman. Relevant extract of his cross-examination are as under:
"It is correct that I have not filed any document on record to show that the management has authorized me to depose in the present matter on its behalf. It is correct that the workman had lastly worked with the management till 19.03.2008. It is correct that during the course of the employment the management did not give any show-cause notice or memo to workman regarding her work performance. It is correct that the management has placed on judicial file the complete record of workman. It is correct that the name of workman was in the record of management till 19.03.2020...It is correct that the management had not sent any letter of LIR 198/24 SHOBHA VS. M/S AMAZON TRANSPORTATION SERVICE PVT. LTD. 6/21 workman for calling her on duty. Vol. Management had given the messages through telephone for calling her duty but the management have no any record to prove the said voluntarily statement...It is correct that the management had not conducted any domestic enquiry against the workman. The management has not received the demand notice Ex.WW1/1. The address of management mentioned on the said demand notice is correct at point A...I have no knowledge whether the workman had filed her statement of claim before the Conciliation Officer at Pushpa Bhawan, New Delhi or not... I cannot tell where the workman is employed at present".
15. Thereafter on 10.07.2025, ME qua M-2 stands closed and matter was listed for final arguments
16. Final arguments heard.
17. During the arguments, AR for management no.2 strongly submitted that since the claimant failed to resume duties despite a valid reinstatement offer from management the claimant is not entitled to any relief against management. AR for management no.2 also emphasized that it is a well settled legal principle that if an employee refuses/neglect to rejoin work after being offered reinstatement, he/she cannot subsequently raise an industrial dispute against the employer/management. In support of his contentions, AR for management no.2 heavily relied upon case law titled as Sonal Garments Vs. Trimbak Shankar Carvey 2002 (6) BOM CR 529,[2003 (96) FLR 498].
LIR 198/24 SHOBHA VS. M/S AMAZON TRANSPORTATION SERVICE PVT. LTD. 7/21 Finding on management no.2's offer of re-employment
18. The offer given by the management to the claimant vide its written statement is reproduced as under:
"without prejudice to what is stated above, it is stated that the claimant is still free to report for work and he shall be provided with the work wherever it is available in Delhi NCR, subject to the claimant shall comply with requirements under the provisions of the PSRA, 2005 and further the claimant will not be entitled for any wages for period from 19.03.2020 as he has not performed any work with the management thereafter. Further, the above is also without prejudice to the right of management to take disciplinary action against the claimant for his unauthorized absence. However, in case the claimant is still fail to report for duty in response to this offer, it shall be presumed that the claimant is not interested in employment anymore".
19. The management's offer, as articulated in its written statement, does not constitute a valid, genuine, or reasonable offer of reinstatement.
20. Reinstatement in labour law means restoring the employee to the same position which he held before the termination, with continuity of service and all benefits.
21. The management's offer does not meet this essential legal requirement. A genuine offer of reinstatement would not be contingent on the "availability of work" at a future date; it would be an immediate restoration to the rolls. The repeated use of the LIR 198/24 SHOBHA VS. M/S AMAZON TRANSPORTATION SERVICE PVT. LTD. 8/21 phrase "without prejudice to what is stated above" inextricably links the offer to the following contentions, which are completely contrary to the concept of reinstatement:
Abandonment and valid termination The offer is conditional upon the workman implicitly accepting management's core defence that she abandoned the job and her termination was 'legal, valid and justified'. Accepting this offer would be an act of surrender, undermining the very foundation of her case.
Threat of disciplinary action The offer is made "subject to the right of management to take disciplinary action...for unauthorized absence." This contradict the very premise of reinstatement which is meant to nullify the allegations of termination. An offer that treats the period post termination as "unauthorized absence" and keeps the sword of disciplinary action hanging is coercive, not bona fide. Forfeiture of back wages The management's offer explicitly states that the workman is not entitled to any wages for the intervening period. As per Sonal Garments case (Supra) the management can stop the back wages from the date of reinstatement offer in case of refusal by the workman. However, in the present case the management seeks to extinguish the claim for the entire intervening period, even before the offer was made.
22. A bonafide offer of reinstatement is one made to genuinely resolve the dispute and mitigate loss. In the present case, the management's offer appears to be strategic litigation tactic just to show that the workman is unwilling to work; to shift LIR 198/24 SHOBHA VS. M/S AMAZON TRANSPORTATION SERVICE PVT. LTD. 9/21 the blame for the non-employment onto the workman; and force the workman to abandon her legal rights as a pre-condition for receiving a new uncertain job. The law cannot compel a workman to accept a fresh contract of employment under terms that require to surrender her statutory rights and legal claims.
23. The decision in Sonal Garments case (Supra) completely depends on the employer having made an unequivocal offer to take the employee back into service. The principle of mitigation of loss applies when such a genuine offer is made and a workman who refuses a valid reinstatement offer may loose his/her claim for back wages from the date of the offer.
24. In the present case the management's offer is not clear and is laden with prejudicial terms. The offer, when read as a whole, is not an offer of reinstatement but a conditional offer of fresh employment that seeks an impermissible surrender of the workman's legal rights. It is unreasonable, not bonafide, and does not meet the standard required to invoke the consequences of a refusal under the Sonal Garments case principle.
25. The primary need of the workman is not just any job, but a restoration of his previous position with continuity of service, which this offer explicitly denies. Therefore, the ratio laid down in Sonal Garments case (Supra) does not apply to the present case.
26. On the other hand, in the rejoinder the workman has categorically stated that "she is still ready to join duty with the management on the same post." This is clear and unequivocal acceptance of reinstatement offer but she is not obliged to accept LIR 198/24 SHOBHA VS. M/S AMAZON TRANSPORTATION SERVICE PVT. LTD. 10/21 the onerous and conditional terms laid down by the management. Her response preserves her right to challenge the illegal termination on merit and claim consequential benefits.
27. As discussed above, the management's offer is not valid, unconditional offer of reinstatement. It is a tactical plea crafted to create a defense against the claim for back wages and to impose punitive conditions. The workman has rightly not accepted these conditions but has maintained her willingness to rejoin her original post which is the essence of the relief seeks.
28. Therefore, the argument of AR for management no.2 that the workman has neglected/refused a valid offer thereby barring her claim for reinstatement, is devoid of merits and hereby rejected.
My issuewise findings are as under:-
Issue no.2 Whether there exist no any employer-employee relation between management no.1 and workman? OPM-1
29. It is well settled principle of law that a person who sets up a plea of existence of employer-employee relation is required to adduce cogent evidence for discharging the burden as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in ' Workmen of Nilgiri Co-operative Marketing Society Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 514'. Paras 47 to 49 of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court being relevant are extracted below:
47. It is a well-settled principle of law that the person who sets up a plea of existence of relationship of employer and employee, the burden would be upon him.
LIR 198/24 SHOBHA VS. M/S AMAZON TRANSPORTATION SERVICE PVT. LTD. 11/21
48. In N.C. John Vs. Secy, Thodupuzha Taluk Shop and Commercial Establishment Workers' Union, the Kerala High Court held:
The burden of proof being on the workmen to establish the employer-employee relationship an adverse inference cannot be drawn against the employer that if he were to produce books of accounts they would have proved employer-employee relationship.
49. In Swapan Das Gupta Vs. The First Labour Court of West Bengal it has been held:
Where a person asserts that he was a workmen of the Company, and it is denied by the Company, it is for him to prove the fact. It is not for the Company to prove that he was not an employee of the Company but of some other person.
Existence of Employer-Employee Relationship
30. The contention of management no.1 is that no employer-employee relationship exist between claimant and management no.1, hence, claimant is not entitled to seek relief against it.
31. The law relating to existence of employer-employee relationship is well explained by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in "Airport Authority of India Vs. A.S. Yadav and Ors., W.P. (C) 5168/2005 and CM No.47971/2029" wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has made reference to paragraphs 37 to 39 of the decision in "International Airport Authority of India V. International Cargo Workers' Union and Another, (2009) 13 SCC 374" which reads as under :-
LIR 198/24 SHOBHA VS. M/S AMAZON TRANSPORTATION SERVICE PVT. LTD. 12/21 "37. The industrial adjudicator can grant the relief sought if it finds that contract between the principal employer and the contractor is sham, nominal and merely a camouflage to deny employment benefits to the employer and that there is in fact a direct employment, by applying tests like: who pays the salary; who has the power to remove/dismiss from service or initiate disciplinary action; who has direction and employee the way in which the work should be done, in short, who has direction and control over the employee. But where there is no notification under Section 10 of the CLRA Act and where it is not proved in the industrial adjudication that the contract was a sham/nominal and camouflage, then the question of directing the principal employer to absorb or regularize the services of the contract labour does not arise.
38. The tests that are applies to find out whether a person is an employee or an independent contractor may not automatically apply in finding out whether the contract labour agreement is a sham, nominal and is a mere camouflage. For example, if the contract is for supply of labour, necessarily, the labour supplied by the contractor will work under the directions, supervision and control of the principal employer, if the salary is paid by a contractor, if the right to regulate the employment is with the contractor and the ultimate supervision and control lies with the contractor.
LIR 198/24 SHOBHA VS. M/S AMAZON TRANSPORTATION SERVICE PVT. LTD. 13/21
39. The principal employer only controls and directs the work to be done by a contract labour, when such labour is assigned/allotted/allotted/sent to him. But it is the contractor as employer, who choose whether the worker is to be assigned/allotted to the principal employer or used otherwise.
In short, worker being the employee of the contractor, the ultimate supervision and control lies with the contractor as he decides where the employee will work and how long he will work and subject to what conditions. Only when the contractor assigns/sends the worker to work under the principal employer, the worker works under the supervision and control of the principal employer but that is secondary control. The primary control is with the contractor."
32. Relying upon Airport Authority of India case (Supra), in a dispute of existence of employer-employee relationship, the court adjudicating the dispute is required to examine as to (1) who pays salary to the workman, (2) who possesses the power to initiate disciplinary action against him and (3) whether the alleged employer has any control and supervision over the claimant workman.
33. Further, in 'Balwant Rai Saluja and Another Vs. Air India Limited and Others (2014 (9) SCC 407)' the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held as under:-
"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:"
LIR 198/24 SHOBHA VS. M/S AMAZON TRANSPORTATION SERVICE PVT. LTD. 14/21 "(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."
34. Coming to the facts of the present case, the claimant/workman's own case is that she was appointed by management no.2 and management no.2 was her employer who deputed her to work at the site of management no.1. Further WW1/claimant specifically admitted that management no.2 used to pay her salary and other legal benefits and she had no document to prove her employment with management no.1. Management no.1 did not issue any appointment letter, salary slip, leave book or other employment related documents to her.
35. It is undisputed fact that management no.1 had given contract of supply of manpower/security services to management no.2 (Mark A i.e. master service agreement). This establishes a principal (management no.1) and contractor (management no.2) relationship.
36. Although the claimant claimed supervision of both the managements but in Airports Authority of India case (Supra) the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has settled the position of law that the instructions issued by the employees of principal employer (management no.1) at the workplace does not amount to control and supervision. Hence, the ultimate control and supervision over the claimant/workman was with the management no.2.
LIR 198/24 SHOBHA VS. M/S AMAZON TRANSPORTATION SERVICE PVT. LTD. 15/21
37. On the basis of testimony of WW1/claimant and evidences on record, it is evidently clear that she was employed by management no.2 and the terms of employment including salary were managed by management no.2. No direct relationship of employer-employee exist between the claimant and management no.1.
38. Since there is no employer-employee relationship exist between claimant and management no.1, the claim petition is not maintainable against management no.1. Issue no.3 Whether the workman has absented from duty unauthorisedly w.e.f 19.03.2020? OPM-2
39. The burden to prove this issue was upon the management no.2. In order to discharge it's burden, management no.2 heavily relied upon the testimony of M2W1.
40. During cross-examination management no.2's witness (M2W1) admitted that no letter was sent to the workman regarding her unauthorized absence from work. M2W1 voluntarily deposed that the communication was sent only via a "messages through telephone". However, he admitted that he had no record to substantiate this claim.
41. Further during cross-examination management no.1's witness (M1W1) also deposed that he did not send any letter to the workman for calling back to join duty but management no.1/M1W1 placed on record one photocopy document (Mark D i.e. a letter of unauthorized absence allegedly written on management no.2's letter head) to show service of an absentism notice to workman. This document (Mark D) was neither placed LIR 198/24 SHOBHA VS. M/S AMAZON TRANSPORTATION SERVICE PVT. LTD. 16/21 on record nor relied upon either by management no.2 or its witness (M2W1). Moreover, this document along with its postal receipt bearing correct address of workman was never shown or put to the workman/WW1 during her cross-examination to rebut her version. Hence this photocopy document (Mark D) lacks evidentiary value and cannot be relied upon.
42. Additionally M2W1 also admitted that no domestic enquiry was ever conducted against the workman.
43. It is settled law that an employer alleges abandonment must make a reasonable attempt to ascertain the reason for absence and direct the employee to resume duty. Abandonment of service is not a unilateral act of the employee; it is a conclusion drawn from the conduct of the employee, which must be a "voluntarily relinquishment of service" with a clear intention not to return. In the present case if the workman had truly absconded, a proper enquiry culminating in a termination order for misconduct would have been a natural course. However, nothing is on record.
44. As discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that management no.2 failed to prove any act on its part to communicate with the workman after 19.03.2020 to enquire about her absence or called her back for duty. Further the conduct of management no.2 in not holding any enquiry also negates the theory of abandonment. Accordingly, management no.2 has failed to discharge it's burden of proving that the workman has voluntarily abandoned her job. Hence, this issue is decided against the management no.2 and in favour of the workman.
LIR 198/24 SHOBHA VS. M/S AMAZON TRANSPORTATION SERVICE PVT. LTD. 17/21 Issue no.1 Whether the services of the workman were terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management no.2? OPW
45. The burden to prove this issue was upon the workman. In order to discharge her burden, the workman heavily relied upon her own testimony and documentary evidences.
46. Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provides conditions precedent to retrenchment to workman as under:
25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.
47. "No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until:
(a) The workman has been given one month 's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice.
(b) The workman has been
paid, at the time of retrenchment,
compensation which shall be
equivalent to fifteen days 'average pay or any part thereof in excess of six months; and
(c) Notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government [or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette."
48. Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act mandates that an employer must provide one months notice or wages in LIR 198/24 SHOBHA VS. M/S AMAZON TRANSPORTATION SERVICE PVT. LTD. 18/21 lieu of notice and compensation equivalent to 15 days' average pay for every completed year of service before retrenching an employee.
49. In Devinder Singh v. Municipal Council, Sanaur (2011 (6) SCC 584), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in paragraphs 19 to 21 as under:
"19. Section 25 couched in negative form. It imposes a restriction on the employer's right to retrench a workman and lays down that no workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less then one year under an employer shall be retrenched until he has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired or he has been paid wages for the period of notice and he has also been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months and notice in the prescribed manner has been served upon the appropriate Government or the authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.
20. This Court has repeatedly held that the provisions contained in Section 25F (a) and (b) are mandatory and termination of the service of a workman, which amounts to retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) without giving one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof and retrenchment compensation is null and void/illegal/inoperative--State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha AIR 1960 SC 610, Bombay Union of Journalists v. State of Bombay AIR 1964 SC 1617, State Bank LIR 198/24 SHOBHA VS. M/S AMAZON TRANSPORTATION SERVICE PVT. LTD. 19/21 of India v. N. Sundara Money (supra), Santosh Gupta v. State Bank of Patiala (1980) 3 SCC 340, Mohan Lal v. Bharat Electronics Ltd.(1981) 3 SCC 225, L. Robert D'Souza v. Southern Railway (supra), Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court (1980) 4 SCC 443, Gammon India Ltd. v. Niranjan Dass (1984) 1 SCC 509, Gurmail Singh v. State of Punjab (1991) 1 SCC 189 and Pramod Jha v. State of Bihar (2003) 4 SCC 619.
21. In Anoop Sharma v. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division, Haryana (supra), the Court considered the effect of violation of Section 25F, referred to various precedents on the subject and held the termination of service of a workman without complying with the mandatory provisions contained in Section 25-F (a) and (b) should ordinarily result in his reinstatement."
50. Since management no.2 has already failed to prove the abandonment of service by the workman, the cessation of work w.e.f 19.03.2020 must be treated as termination of service by management no.2. There is nothing on record that the management has complied with the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act. The evidences on record clearly points to a termination of the services of the workman without due process and in violation of statutory provisions.
51. As discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that the management no.2 had violated the provision of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act and consequently, illegally terminated the services of the workman. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of workman and against the management no.2.
LIR 198/24 SHOBHA VS. M/S AMAZON TRANSPORTATION SERVICE PVT. LTD. 20/21 RELIEF:-
52. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the statement of claim is allowed and management no.2 is directed to reinstate the workman with continuity of service within one month. Management no.2 is also directed to pay the workman back wages amounting to 50% of the last drawn wages w.e.f. the date of termination till the date of her actual reinstatement within one month failing which management no.2 shall pay 75% of the back wages.
53. Reference stands answered in aforesaid terms.
54. Copy of award be sent to Deputy Labour Commissioner, South-East District, Labour Department, Labour Welfare Centre, Bal Mukund Khand, Giri Nagar, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019 for publication.
55. Judicial file be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
on 30.01.2026
Digitally signed by
SURENDER SURENDER MOHIT
MOHIT SINGH
Date: 2026.01.31
SINGH
(Dr. Surender Mohit Singh)
20:36:46 +0530
District Judge,POLC-VIII
RADC/New Delhi
LIR 198/24 SHOBHA VS. M/S AMAZON TRANSPORTATION SERVICE PVT. LTD. 21/21