Delhi District Court
Brahmanand Gautam vs M/S Precision Scientific And Testing ... on 14 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF RITU SINGH, DISTRICT & ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE, PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT - IV, ROUSE AVENUE COURTS, NEW DELHI.
L I R No. 112/2024CNR No. DLCT-13-000404-2024 Sh. Brahmanand Gautam S/o Sh. Daya Ram R/o B-127, W-14/85, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Phase-1 New Delhi.
.........WORKMAN VERSUS M/s Precision Scientific and Testing Equipment (P) Ltd. B-143/1, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Phase-1 New Delhi 110064 ...............Management Date of Institution : 20.01.2024 Date of Arguments: 28.10.2025 Date of Award : 14.11.2025 Decision : Claim of the workman allowed.
AWARD
1) Vide this Award, this Court shall decide the Industrial Dispute which was referred by Deputy Labour Commissioner, (New Delhi District), Employment Exchange Building, Pusa Campus, New Delhi 110012 on a complaint filed by the workman against the Managements, vide reference bearing no.F.24(60)/CO-36)LO/NDD/2023/219 dated 29.11.2023 u/s L I R No. 112/2024 Brahmanand Gautam vs M/s Precision Scientific and Testing Equipment (P) Ltd.
Page No. 1/2110(1)(c) and 12 (5) of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, wherein the following reference was to be answered :-
"Whether Sh. Brahmanand Gautam S/o Sh. Daya Ram age about 35 years has left his services on his own without intimation to the management, if not, his services have been terminated illegally and /or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in the respect?"
THE CLAIM OF THE WORKMAN
2) Notice of reference was issued to the workman and thereafter workman had appeared in Court and filed his statement of claim.
3) The workman Sh. Brahmanand Gautam has asserted in his statement of claim that he had been in continuous employment of management since 01.01.2014 on the post of 'Helper' (Semi-skilled) at the last drawn wages to the tune of Rs. 10,200/- per month. He has further alleged in his statement of claim that since 01.01.2014, he has been performing his duty in management sincerely, honestly, diligently, without any complaint of management.
4) The workman has further claimed in his statement of claim that management was not following the rules and regulations of the Labour Laws as management did not provide any statutory benefits and facilities like ESIC, PF, Bonus, sick leaves, earned leaves, bonus, minimum wages, overtime dues etc. and he was not even issued any appointment letter or identity card by management.
L I R No. 112/2024Brahmanand Gautam vs M/s Precision Scientific and Testing Equipment (P) Ltd.
Page No. 2/215) It is stated in statement of claim of the workman that he had been demanding his statutory benefits from the managements and during course of his employment, the management had obtained his signatures/thumb impression on blank papers and vouchers duly affixed revenue stamps with false assurance that the management shall provide all the legal facilities to him.
6) It is alleged that in month of March 2021 the workman had met with an accident and got fracture in elbow of his left hand and remained under plaster for long period of time and when he visited the management to resume his duty, the management had asked him to bring his fitness certificate of the hospital and when he again visited the management for joining duty after obtaining fitness certificate, the management kept delaying and ultimately on 02.08.2024 had refused to take him back in service and that on 02.08.2024 management had orally terminated him from his services without disclosing any reason or without paying his earned wages for period from 01.06.2021 to 02.08.2021 and without issuing any notice pay, without issuance of any show-cause notice and his other dues and thus his termination is in violation of principal of natural justice and section 25F, 25G and 25H of ID Act.
7) It is alleged that after termination of services of workman, he kept visiting to the management for his earned wages and for his re-instatement in service but management has refused to take him back in services and extended threat to falsely implicate him in false criminal cases.
L I R No. 112/2024Brahmanand Gautam vs M/s Precision Scientific and Testing Equipment (P) Ltd.
Page No. 3/218) Workman has stated that he lodged complaint in the Labour Department through his Union on 05.08.2021, but all the efforts of the Labour Inspector were in vain due to attitude of management. Thereafter, workman had raised industrial dispute regarding his illegal termination by management before the Conciliation Officer and on issuance of notice, no one had appeared on behalf of the management and thus the said matter could not be settled.
9) It is stated that workman is unemployed since the date of termination from services till date, despite his best efforts for the same but could not get any alternative employment.
10) It is stated in statement of claim of the workman that while terminating the services of the workman, managements had not paid him his salary due for the months of 01.06.2021 to 02.08.2021.
11) Workman has prayed for order in his favour and for directions to managements to reinstate him in service with continuity in service and all consequential benefits with full back wages.
VERSION OF MANAGEMENTS IN ITS REPLY
12) Notice of the statement of claim of the workman was issued to management and pursuant to the service of the notice, the management had entered appearance before the Court and filed its written statement.
13) In its written statement, management has denied that management had employed the workman for the post of helper (semi-skilled) since 01.01.2014 and asserted that workman was L I R No. 112/2024 Brahmanand Gautam vs M/s Precision Scientific and Testing Equipment (P) Ltd.
Page No. 4/21employed as sweeper in the management, w.e.f the date of appointment of the workman mentioned in his e-pehchan card, which is 02.11.2016. It is stated in written statement of the management that it had received complaints against workman regarding incomplete work and ill behaviour and many other employees had complained that workman used to remain under influence of alcohol, during his working hours.
14) It is alleged in written statement of management that management has ceased all its operations w.e.f 01.04.2023, due to financial losses suffered after Covid-19 pandemic and that management had shut down its factory at B-143/1 Mayapuri Industrial Area Phase-1, New Delhi 110064 and all physical records relating to appointment letter, ESIC, PF, bonus EL/CL, leave record, identity card of its employees for the year 2014 have been destroyed since all operations have been shut down w.e.f 01.04.2023.
15) Management has alleged in its written statement that it had been providing all the facilities during the course of employment of the workman but since management had ceased all its operations w.e.f 01.04.2023, no documents are available with the management. It is stated that other then statement that management was incapable of reinstating the workman as its factory had shut down, due to heavy financial losses.
16) The management has alleged in its written statement that it had never obtained any signatures or thumb impression of the workman on blank papers or vouchers, at any point of time. Management has alleged in written statement that since workman had met with accident on 21.03.2021 and remained L I R No. 112/2024 Brahmanand Gautam vs M/s Precision Scientific and Testing Equipment (P) Ltd.
Page No. 5/21under plaster and he was clearly not fit for work and on 06.04.2021 the workman was advised by the Doctor of ESI Hospital that workman was clear for surgery and that workman had been continuously getting treatment on 21.03.2021, 26.03.2021,30.03.2021, 06.04.2021, 13.04.2021, 20.04.2021, 04.05.2021, 18.05.2021, 04.06.2021, 15.06.2021, 24.08.2021 and 21.09.2021.
17) Management has alleged that workman had not provided any fitness certificate to the management and he had never requested the management for his reinstatement. The management has asserted that after after workman was declared to work on 15.06.2021 as per his own document, he did not approach the management for work nor he tried for reinstatement with the management during the month of June 2021. The management had denied that it had terminated services of the workman without issuing any notice.
18) Management has alleged that it had not stopped the workman from joining join services back, and asserted that the workman himself had never tried to join services back with the management during his tenure with the management. It is claimed that management had settled the workman's account till his last date of employment with the management.
19) Management has denied all the remaining allegations levelled by the workman in his statement of claim against management and prayed that present claim of the workman be dismissed.
L I R No. 112/2024Brahmanand Gautam vs M/s Precision Scientific and Testing Equipment (P) Ltd.
Page No. 6/2120) The workman has not filed rejoinder to the written statement of the management.
ISSUES
21) Vide order dated 06.03.2025, the
following issues were framed in view of pleadings of the parties and the reference:-
(1) Whether the workman Sh. Brahmanand Gautam S/o Sh. Daya Ram had left the services of the management, on his own? OPM
(ii) Whether the services of the workman were terminated illegally and /or unjustifiably by the management? OPW
(iii) What relief is the workman entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect? OPW EVIDENCE OF WORKMAN
22) In order to prove the case, the workman appeared as witness WW1 and filed his evidence affidavit Ex. WW-1/A wherein he has reiterated the contents of statement of claim on solemn affirmation. Besides this, he had also placed on record the following documents:-
(i) Ex. WW1/1 (Colly, 10 pages) (OSR). (ii) Ex. WW1/2 copy of complaint dated 05.08.2021 (iii) Ex. WW1/3 & Ex. WW1/4 copy of demand notice and its postal receipts.
(iii) Ex. WW1/5 copy of statement of claim filed before the conciliation officer.
(iv) Ex. WW1/6 copy of e-pehchan
23) Workman was cross-examined by Ld. AR for the management and as per submissions of AR for the workman, workman evidence was closed vide order dated 10.07.2025.
24) Thereafter, matter was listed for management evidence.L I R No. 112/2024
Brahmanand Gautam vs M/s Precision Scientific and Testing Equipment (P) Ltd.
Page No. 7/21EVIDENCE OF MANAGEMENT
25) The management has examined MW1 Sh. Nitin Tully, who filed his affidavit by way of evidence as Ex.MW1/A, reiterating the factual contents of the written statement of management on solemn affirmation. He has relied on document Ex. MW1/1 (colly 2 pages) which is copy of bank account statement of proprietorship firm. This witness of the management was cross-examined by AR for the workman. Management evidence was closed on 18.09.2025.
26) Thereafter, matter was listed for final arguments. Written submissions and judgments were filed on behalf of parties. Same has been perused. This Court has heard the detailed final arguments addressed by AR for the workman and AR of the management and thoroughly perused the record and documents on record.
27) Issue-wise findings of this Court are as under:-
Issue No. 1 & Issue No. 2(1)Whether the workman Sh. Brahmanand Gautam S/o Sh. Daya Ram had left the services of the management, on his own? OPM & (2)Whether the services of the workman were terminated illegally and /or unjustifiably by the management? OPW
28) This Court proceeds to consider and decide issue no.
1 and issue no. 2 together, as they are inter-connected.
29) The onus to prove issue 1 is on the management and the onus to prove issue no. 2 is on the workman.
L I R No. 112/2024Brahmanand Gautam vs M/s Precision Scientific and Testing Equipment (P) Ltd.
Page No. 8/2130) In the case at hand, the workman has claimed in his statement of claim that he was working as 'helper' (semi-skilled) since 01.01.2014 in the management and since then he had been continuously and uninterruptedly working in the management till illegal termination by the management on 02.08.2021 in violation of section 25F, 25G & 25H of ID Act and without compliance of principles of natural justice and without issuing any notice and without any notice pay.
31) On the other hand, management has admitted that workman was employed as sweeper in management, but asserted that workman had been working in the management since 02.11.2016 (as shown in his e-pehchan card) and not from 01.01.2014 as alleged by the workman.
32) Management has not disputed that workman had met with an accident on 21.03.2021 and that he was not fit to work thereafter. However, management has asserted that workman had never given his fitness certificate to management nor he had approached the management for work or tried to re-join the services of management during June, 2021, after being declared fit.
33) Management has denied that it had terminated the services of the workman. Management has alleged that since 01.04.2023, management has shut down all its operations at B-143/1 Mayapuri, Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi. The plea of management since beginning has been that workman had not been terminated by management. Instead, the management has asserted in its written statement that workman had not approached it for joining the work after he had met with an L I R No. 112/2024 Brahmanand Gautam vs M/s Precision Scientific and Testing Equipment (P) Ltd.
Page No. 9/21accident on 21.03.2021 and he had remained unauthorizedly absent from duty thereafter.
34) The claim of workman that he was employed by management since 01.01.2014, was initially denied by management in its written statement, but MW1 Sh. Nitin Tully, Director of management has categorically admitted in his cross- examination before Court that workman had been working in management since 2014, though he could not recollect the date and month of 2014, since when workman had started working with the management. In these circumstances, there is no reason to doubt the version of the workman that he had been working with the management since 01.01.2014 as the admission of management's witness MW1 Sh. Nitin Tully has lent credence to this fact, on basis of preponderance of probability.
35) Thus, in view of abovesaid categorical admission of MW1 Sh. Nitin Tully, Director of management, this Court holds that workman has been able to establish that he had been working with management since 01.01.2014.
36) The claim of workman that he had met with accident in March 2021 and had suffered fracture in left hand elbow which remained plastered for long time, has been substantiated with documentary evidence i.e. his medical treatment papers Ex. WW1/1. He has deposed in his evidence affidavit Ex. WW1/A that after removal of plaster, he approached the management for joining his duties, but management asked him to furnish his fitness certificate and after getting fitness certificate, he again approached the management for joining his duties, but management again kept deferring it and ultimately, management L I R No. 112/2024 Brahmanand Gautam vs M/s Precision Scientific and Testing Equipment (P) Ltd.
Page No. 10/21had orally terminated him on 02.08.2021 by refusing to take him on duty.
37) The management has not disputed that workman had with accident on 21.03.2021 and remained under plaster for long period of time. However, the management has denied in written statement that workman had provided his fitness certificate to management. Management has also denied in its written statement that it had terminated services of workman and denied that it had refused the workman from joining his duty, after he was declared fit as per his certificate dated 15.06.2021.
38) However, MW1 Nitin Tully, Director of management has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that management had terminated the services of workman, though allegedly as workman had stopped attending his duties. MW1 Nitin Tully has further deposed in his cross-examination that management had sent show-cause notice to workman regarding his absenteeism as well as notice of termination and he had voluntarily stated that management had sent its other employees to residence of workman to find out reason of his absenteeism.
39) Admittedly copy of said show-cause notice of absenteeism or notice of termination allegedly sent by management to the workman, has not been brought on record. Management has also not provided names, designation and relevant details of employees who were allegedly sent by it to residence of workman to find out reasons regarding his absenteeism nor management has examined any of its said employees to substantiate its claim.
L I R No. 112/2024Brahmanand Gautam vs M/s Precision Scientific and Testing Equipment (P) Ltd.
Page No. 11/2140) In absence of any cogent and reliable evidence to support averment of management that it had sent notice of termination and show-cause notice of absenteeism to workman, mere oral bald deposition of MW1 without any other evidence, oral or documentary, to corroborate the version of MW1 Nitin Tully is of no assistance to management in establishing its defence.
41) On this point, there is nothing in the surrounding circumstances or the conduct of the workman indicating or suggesting an intention on his part to leave or abandon.
42) Temporary absence is not ordinary sufficient to constitute an abandonment of office. In Buckingham Co. Vs. Venkatiah & Ors (1964) 4 SCR, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that under common law an inference that an employee has abandonment or relinquished service is not easily drawn unless from the length of absence and from other surrounding circumstances, an inference to that effect can be legitimately drawn and it can be assumed that the employee intended to abandon service. Abandonment or relinquishment of service is always a question of intension, and normally, such an intention cannot be attributed to an employee without adequate evidence in that behalf. Thus, whether there has been a voluntary abandonment of service or not is a question of fact which has to be determined in the light of the surrounding circumstances of each case.
43) Thus, in absence of any cogent evidence led by management to prove that workman had left the job on his own, this Court cannot presume that workman had left his job, on his L I R No. 112/2024 Brahmanand Gautam vs M/s Precision Scientific and Testing Equipment (P) Ltd.
Page No. 12/21own. In view of these observation, issue no.1 is decided against the management and in favour of the workman.
44) On the issue of illegal termination, it is important to note that MW1 Nitin Tully has categorically admitted that management had terminated the services of the workman and therefore, the onus has shifted on management to justify its action of termination of the workman in terms of guidelines laid down in the judgment of Workmen of Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd. v. The Management of Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd and Others. (1973) 1 SCC 813.
45) The justification furnished by management witness MW1 in his evidence affidavit for termination of the workman is that workman had stopped attending his duties, on his own due to personal and medical reasons and that management had issued a notice to him before terminating him. However, admittedly the management has not placed on record copy of any such show- cause notice/notice of termination or any other relevant document.
46) Now in present case, even if it is presumed for the sake of arguments that the workman himself had stopped attending his duty in the management, in that case, it was the duty of management to ask him to join duty as it is settled position of law that if a workman/workman fails to report for duty, the management is bound to call upon him to join duty. It has been held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in M/s Fateh Chand Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court & Hari Om Sharma Vs. M/s G.R. Sons Anr., 2012 (3) SCT 724 as follows :
"It is also no more res integra that even in a case of unauthorized absenteeism or to prove abandonment of L I R No. 112/2024 Brahmanand Gautam vs M/s Precision Scientific and Testing Equipment (P) Ltd.Page No. 13/21
service on the part of the workman the management must place on record necessary material to prove that enough efforts were made by it to call upon the workman to resume back hi duty and the workman has shown his clear reluctance for the same."
47) But in the instant case, no such material, that is, any notice/ show cause notice or memo issued to the workman asking him to join the duty, has been placed on record by the management. Management has not specifically pleaded in its written statement that it had asked the workman to join his duty during the period of his alleged absenteeism.
48) Even though, MW1 Sh. Nitin Tully had deposed in his cross-examination that management had sent notice to the workman before termination of his service and also a show cause notice regarding his absenteeism to the workman. However copy of aforesaid notice regarding termination as well as show-cause notice regarding absenteeism, has not been placed on record. Moreover, there is no reference of show-cause notice regarding absenteeism of workman, in pleadings of management.
49) Therefore, in absence of any cogent credible evidence on record, this Court cannot presume that the workman had left the services of management and reliance in this regard is placed in the judgment of M/s Fateh Chand Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court & Anr. 2012 LLR 468 Delhi , wherein the the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed that the management has to bring on record sufficient material to show that the employee has abandoned the service and abandonment cannot be attributed to the employee without there being-sufficient evidence and that on failure to report for duty, the management has to call upon the employee and if he refuses to report, then an L I R No. 112/2024 Brahmanand Gautam vs M/s Precision Scientific and Testing Equipment (P) Ltd.
Page No. 14/21enquiry is required to be ordered against him and accordingly action taken. In the absence of anything placed on record by the petitioner management, no presumption against the workman can be drawn and in the aforesaid case, it was held to be a case of violation of Section 25F of the Act.
50) Since, management has failed to show any reasonable justification for termination of workman by management, therefore, this Court holds that termination of workman by the management is illegal as it is in violation of section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act.
51) Accordingly, in view of aforesaid observation, issue no. 2 is decided in favour of the workman and against the management.
ISSUE NO.3 Relief
52) The workman herein has sought the relief of reinstatement in the service with full back wages and all the consequential benefits. This Court has considered the arguments and perused the record.
53) The term "reinstatement" has not been elucidated in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. II, 3rd Edition stated that, the word "reinstate" means to reinstall or reestablish (a person or thing in a place, station, condition etc.); to restore to its proper and original state; to reinstate afresh and the word "reinstatement means the action of reinstating; reestablishment. "As per Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, "reinstatement" means 'to reinstall, to reestablish, to L I R No. 112/2024 Brahmanand Gautam vs M/s Precision Scientific and Testing Equipment (P) Ltd.
Page No. 15/21place again in a former state, condition, or office, to restore to a state or position from which the object or person had been removed'.
54) In the case titled as Tapash Kumar Paul Vs BSNL & Anr, JT 2014 (7) SC 589, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Court may either award the compensation or order for reinstatement in the cases which do not fall within the five categories as described by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment. The relevant portion of this judgment is reproduced as under :
"It is no doubt true that a Court may pass an order substituting an order of reinstatement by awarding compensation but the same has to be based on justifiable grounds viz.(i) where the industry is closed; (ii) where the employee has superannuated or going to retire shortly and no period of service is left to his credit; (iii) where the workman has been rendered incapacitated to discharge the duties and cannot be reinstated and/or; (iv) when he has lost confidence of the Management to discharge duties. What is sought to be emphasised is that there may be appropriate case on facts which may justify substituting the order of reinstatement by award of compensation, but that has to be supported by some legal and justifiable reasons indicating why the order of reinstatement should be allowed to be substituted by award of compensation. In the instant matter, we are not satisfied that the appellant's case falls in to any of the categories referred to hereinbefore which would justify compensation in lieu of reinstatement. We thus find no justification for the High Court so as to interfere with the Award passed by the Tribunal which was affirmed even by the single Judge, but the Division Bench thought it appropriate to set aside the order of reinstatement without specifying any reasons whatsoever, as to why it substituted with compensation of a meager amount of Rs.20,000/- to the appellant."
55) In the case at hand, since the management has pleaded that management had shut-down its operations at L I R No. 112/2024 Brahmanand Gautam vs M/s Precision Scientific and Testing Equipment (P) Ltd.
Page No. 16/21B-143/1 Mayapuri Industrial Area Phase-1, New Delhi 110064 therefore, the present case is covered within clause (i) of the conditions in which re-instatement cannot be granted to the workman as observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgment of Tapash Kumar Paul Vs BSNL & Anr, JT 2014 (7) SC 589.
56) Accordingly, this Court of the opinion that since re- instatement cannot be granted to the workman in the present case, therefore, grant of lump-sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement is appropriate relief and shall meet the ends of the justice in the present case.
57) Further, the workman has prayed for full back wages and in his statement of claim as well as in his affidavit Ex.WW1/A, he has deposed that he is unemployed since the date of his illegal termination, despite his best efforts to find job.
58) During final arguments, AR of the management has contended that workman is not entitled to back wages, as management had offered him reinstatement at every step of proceeding, but the workman had not accepted the offer and to buttress his submission, he has relied on deposition of MW1 Sh. Nitin Tully, in his cross-examination wherein, he had deposed that management was ready and willing to offer job to the workman in another unit of management at Manesar, Haryana, as the Delhi unit of management had shut-down w.e.f 01.04.2023.
59) Now perusal of written statement of management as well as evidence affidavit Ex. MW1/A of MW1 Sh. Nitin Tully, clearly shows that management had clearly stated therein that it L I R No. 112/2024 Brahmanand Gautam vs M/s Precision Scientific and Testing Equipment (P) Ltd.
Page No. 17/21can not reinstate the workman as its operations at B-143/1 Mayapuri Industrial Area Phase-1, New Delhi 110064 had shut down and there was absolutely no disclosure by management regarding its Manesar, Haryana Unit either in its pleadings on evidence affidavit of MW1. Moreover, it has been clarified by AR of the management that the Manesar, Haryana unit is the proprietorship firm of mother of Director of erstwhile management (M/s Precision Scientific and Testing Equipment (P) Ltd.)
60) Therefore, in light of above-said facts and circumstances, the contention of the management that it had offered reinstate to workman at every step of proceedings has remained uncorroborated and thus from its pleading and evidence, baseless and unreliable.
61) However, it is important to note that during of course of his cross-examination, the workman had admitted that during period after his termination 'as and when he used to get work on daily basis, he used to do said work'. Thus, in the light of his abovesaid admission, it is clear that management has succeeded in dislodging the version of the workman that he had been absolutely unemployed, since the date of his termination by the management.
62) Ordinarily, a workman whose services has been illegally terminated would be entitled to full back wages, except to extent he was gainfully employed during the period enforced idleness, as opined by Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Smt. Lajja Devi (CWP No.4395/2009 decided on 12.07.2016).
L I R No. 112/2024Brahmanand Gautam vs M/s Precision Scientific and Testing Equipment (P) Ltd.
Page No. 18/2163) Moreover, in the present case the workman has also not discharged the burden of proving the efforts made by him to secure alternative employment during the period of alleged unemployment by specifically stating the nature of efforts made by him to search for job and the specific period during which he was unemployed as well as the circumstances which prevented him from making such efforts and mere silence of the workman on these aspects cannot justify grant of back wages in entirety and reliance in this regard is placed on judgment of the Bombay High Court in Navin J. Surti Vs. Modi Rubber Ltd. and another, (2004 II CLR 46) where it was observed that :
"Eventually, there would be a burden cast upon the employee to disclose the efforts made by him to secure another job during the time he was out of employment on account of termination of the service, in order to justify the claim for the back wages in its entirety. Indeed, the Division Bench in Sadanand Patankar's case (supra) has clearly ruled that "Since the facts about the employment or non- employment and/or the efforts made or not made to secure an alternative employment during the period of enforced idleness are within the special knowledge of the employee, it is only fair and proper that he should first state whether, he was employed or not and during what period, the amount of income earned by him if any, the nature of efforts made by him for securing alternate employment or the circumstances which prevented him from making such efforts. It has also been clearly held that once such burden is discharged by the employee, it would be for the employer to prove facts to the contrary."
64) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 'Rajasthan State Transport Corporation, Jaipur Vs Sri Phool Chand' in Civil Appeal No. 1756/2010 has reiterated that to be entitled for back wages during the pendency of proceedings, the L I R No. 112/2024 Brahmanand Gautam vs M/s Precision Scientific and Testing Equipment (P) Ltd.
Page No. 19/21employee should not be employed in any establishment during the pendency of such proceedings. It was further held that a worker cannot automatically be entitled to back wages and has no right to claim back wages purely on the basis that the dismissal order has been set aside and it was held that :
"In order to claim back wages, a worker is required to prove (by adducing evidence) that he was not gainfully employed anywhere after dismissal, and had no earnings to maintain himself and / or his family. An employer is required to prove that a worker was gainfully employed elsewhere - however the initial burden lies on the worker to substantiate his unemployment."
65) Thus, drawing guidance from the aforesaid judgment of Navin J. Surti Vs. Modi Rubber Ltd. and another (Supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that workman having admitted that since the date of his termination, he used to do work on daily basis as and when he used to get such work, though he did not have any permanent job and further, he has even failed to specify the specific days or months or years during which he had no job or employment and these are sufficient grounds to dis-entitle him to grant of full back wages from the date of his termination.
66) It is also important to note that in case at hand, more than 4 years have passed since illegal termination of workman on 02.08.2021 and it is quite unlikely that he would have remained absolutely without any job, for such long period.
67) Therefore, in light of these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that instead of full back wages, grant of lump- sum compensation in lieu of back wages shall be appropriate relief in the present case.
L I R No. 112/2024Brahmanand Gautam vs M/s Precision Scientific and Testing Equipment (P) Ltd.
Page No. 20/2168) Thus, this Court holds that the workman Sh. Brahmanand Gautam is entitled to lump-sum compensation of sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lac Fifty Thousand Only) in lieu of relief of reinstatement as well as back wages.
69) Management is directed to pay the amount accrued in favour of workman within three months from the date of publication of award. If the management fails to pay the amount within the time stipulated, the accrued amount shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of accrual and till the final payment is made.
70) The reference is answered accordingly. Award is passed accordingly.
71) Digitally signed copy of Award be uploaded on the website of RADC. A copy of the award be sent to the concerned Labour Commissioner for publication, as per rules.
File be consigned to the Record Room. Digitally
signed by
RITU
RITU SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.11.14
15:52:56
+0530
Announced in Open Court (Ritu Singh)
on 14.11.2025 District & Addl. Sessions Judge,
Presiding Officer, Labour Court - IV,
Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi
L I R No. 112/2024
Brahmanand Gautam vs M/s Precision Scientific and Testing Equipment (P) Ltd.
Page No. 21/21