Delhi District Court
Sh. Ritesh Kumar vs Ms Bal Sahyog Sanstha on 7 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF
PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT-01:
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT: NEW DELHI
Presided Over by: Mr. Neeraj Gaur, DHJS
LC 1621/16
SH. RITESH KUMAR Vs. MS BAL SAHYOG SANSTHA
07.02.2026
ORDER ON APPLICATION OF THE MANAGEMENT U/S 11
OF THE ID ACT R/W ORDER 7 RULE 11 CPC
1.The management has filed the above application seeking rejection of the claim on the ground of maintainability. The workman has not filed reply to the application and his AR opted to directly advance the arguments. Arguments have been heard at length.
2. Ld. AR for the management argued that the workman has filed the present claim directly u/s 2-A of the ID Act after taking a certificate of the Conciliation Officer. Admittedly, before approaching the Conciliation Officer or before filing the claim before this court, the workman has not sent any demand notice to the management challenging his termination and/or seeking reinstatement with back-wages. It is argued that in absence of any demand of the workman, no industrial dispute came into existence. As such, in absence of an industrial dispute, the present claim is liable to be rejected. Ld. AR for management has relied on the following judgments:-
(1) Nagender Sharma Vs. The management of M/s Rajasthan Timber Corporation WP (C) No.4375/2003 passed on dt.05.04.2006 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court ;LC 1621/16
SH. RITESH KUMAR Vs. MS BAL SAHYOG SANSTHA Page No. 1 of 10 (2) S N Tiwari Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi WP (C) No.593/2008 dt.20.08.2009 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court ;
(3) Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal of Gujarat & Ors. CA 656 of 1966 decision dt.13.09.1967 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
3. On behalf of the workman, it has been argued that the present claim has been filed under Section 2 A of the ID Act and it is not a reference u/s 10 of the Act. It is argued that as per Section 2 A of the Act, the cases of dismissal, discharge, retrenchment or termination are deemed to be industrial dispute. It is argued that because of this deeming fiction, workman is not required to send a demand notice to the management for bringing into existence an industrial dispute. It is argued that even otherwise, the sending of demand notice is not mandatorily required as has been held in various judicial pronouncements. Ld. AR for the workman has relied on the following judgments:-
(1) Raj Kumar and Anr. Vs. Superintendent Engineer and Anr. W.P. (C) 3801/2015 decision dt.07.05.2019 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court;
(2) WWA Cossipore English School Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. 2017 SCC Online CAL 14054 decision dt.08.09.2017;
(3) Shambu Nath Goyal Vs. Bank of Baroda, (1978) 2 SCC 353, Civil Appeal No.646 of 1971 dt.02.02.1978; (4) Hima Kohli Vs. MCD WP (C) 13023 of 2025 dt.08.06.2007 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court;LC 1621/16
SH. RITESH KUMAR Vs. MS BAL SAHYOG SANSTHA Page No. 2 of 10 (5) Chandrika Yadav Vs. Aman Scales (P) Limited and Anr.
CWP No.13274 of 1997 And Heera Lal Yadav Vs. Aman Scales (P) Ltd. Anr. CWP No.13667 of 1997, (2009) SCC Online P&H 6270;
(6) Algu Ram Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. LPA No.26 of 1974 dt.11.10.1976 passed by Hon'ble High Court Punjab and Haryana;
(7) Good Year India Ltd. Jaipur Vs. Industrial Tribunal Raj, Jaipur, D.B CWP No.290 of 1967, dt.08.05.1968; (8) Sadhu Ram Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (1983) 4 SCC 156, Civil Appeal No.6346 of 1989 dt.25.08.1983; (9) Jawahar Lal And Anr. Vs. State of Punjab (1983) 4 SCC 159, Criminal Appeal No.19 of 1983, dt.17.01.1983; (10) Chandrika Yadav Vs. Aman Scales (P) Ltd. And Anr. and Heera Lal Yadav Vs. Aman Scales (P) Ltd. And Anr. (2009) SCC Online P&H 6270 dt.03.07.2009.
4. I have considered the rival submissions and gone through the record. I have also perused the judgments relied by both the parties. The issue regarding the sending of demand notice was dealt with in detail in Sindhu Resettlement case (supra). In that case, the facts were that the workman had demanded retrenchment compensation from the management which was refused by the management. Thereafter, conciliation proceedings were initiated and matter was finally referred for adjudication before the court. The reference was qua the reinstatement and back-wages. The Tribunal passed in Award directing reinstatement and payment of back-wages. The matter finally reached the LC 1621/16 SH. RITESH KUMAR Vs. MS BAL SAHYOG SANSTHA Page No. 3 of 10 Apex Court. The Apex Court gave the finding that though the Conciliation Officer had reported to the Government regarding existence of an industrial dispute relating to reinstatement and back-wages but when the dispute reached before the Tribunal for adjudication, no such dispute had ever been raised by the workman with the management. The Apex Court held that a mere demand to the Government, without a dispute being raised by the workman with their employer, cannot become an industrial dispute. The Court held that no industrial dispute (regarding reinstatement) as was purported to be referred by the State Government to the Tribunal had ever existed. The reference made by the Government was held to be erroneous.
5. In Shambhunath Goyal case (supra), there was no demand by the workman however, in this case, the Hon'ble Apex Court was of the view that there was unimpeachable evidence that the workman persistently demanded reinstatement in so much so that the workman had filed an appeal against the dismissal from service and praying for reinstatement.
6. In Nagender Sharma's case (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had the occasion of dealing with a similar issue. The Court discussed the judgments in Sindhu Resettlement case as well as Shambhunath Goyal case and after distinguishing the facts of these 2 cases, the Hon'ble High Court held (in para 38) that the judgment passed in Sindhu Resettlement case being rendered by a larger Bench and being in prior in time would prevail over the judgment in LC 1621/16 SH. RITESH KUMAR Vs. MS BAL SAHYOG SANSTHA Page No. 4 of 10 Shambhunath Goyal case and has to be treated as a binding precedent.
7. In Workman of MCD Vs. MCD case (supra), as relied by the workman, the judgment which was referred was Shambhunath Goyal case and the judgment of the larger Bench in Sindu Resettlement case was not brought to the attention of the Hon'ble Court.
8. In Alguram case as relied by the workman, the facts were different as in that case, a notice of demand was in fact issued though not by the workman but by the Union on behalf of the workman.
9. In Chandrika Yadav case (supra) as relied by AR for the workman, the facts are clearly distinguishable as the workman had asserted that he had sent the demand notice. The management has only disputed the service of the demand notice.
10. The law laid down in the Sindhu Resettlement case and Nagender Sharma case (supra) makes it amply clear that to bring into existence an industrial dispute, there has to be a demand by the workman which has been rejected by the management.
11. Ld. AR for the workman argued that the requirement for sending a demand notice could be applicable in case of reference by the Government u/s 10 of the ID Act but not in case of a direct claim made u/s 2 A of the Act because of a deeming fiction created in Sub-section 2. For the sake of LC 1621/16 SH. RITESH KUMAR Vs. MS BAL SAHYOG SANSTHA Page No. 5 of 10 convenience, Section 2 A of the Act is being reproduced herein below:-
2A. Dismissal, etc., of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial dispute.--
(1) Where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the services of an individual workman, any dispute or difference between that workman and his employer connected with, or arising out of, such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the dispute.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in section l0, any such workman as is specified in sub-section (1) may, make an application direct to the Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute referred to therein after the expiry of forty-five days from the date he has made the application to the Conciliation Officer of the appropriate Government for conciliation of the dispute, and in receipt of such application the Labour Court or Tribunal shall have powers and jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute, as if it were a dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government in accordance with the provisions of this Act and all the provisions of this Act shall apply in relation to such adjudication as they apply in relation to an industrial dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government.
(3) The application referred to in sub-section (2) shall be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before the expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service as specified in sub-section (1).
12. The argument of Ld. AR for the workman is that the cases of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination are deemed to be treated as an industrial dispute and hence, no demand notice is required. This deeming fiction has to be read with the non-obstante clause which is notwithstanding that no other workman nor any Union of a workman is a party to the dispute'. This deeming fiction of treating certain LC 1621/16 SH. RITESH KUMAR Vs. MS BAL SAHYOG SANSTHA Page No. 6 of 10 cases as industrial dispute is only to the extent that it can be treated as industrial dispute even without espousal by any co-workman or union. This deeming fiction is more procedural in nature than substantive law. Sub-section 2 vests the power and jurisdiction on the Labour Court/Tribunal to adjudicate upon the dispute in the same manner as if it was a dispute referred by appropriate Government. All the provisions of the Act shall apply in relation to such an adjudication as they apply to a dispute referred by the Government.
13. Section 2 A of the ID Act simply enables a workman to directly approach the Labour Court/Tribunal without espousal from any co-workman or any union and without reference by appropriate Government if it is a case of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination. To succeed in the claim, the case of the workman has to stand on its own legs and the workman is required to firstly establish that there exists an industrial dispute in so much so that he has made a specific demand which has been rejected by the management. In my considered opinion, the requirement of sending a demand notice in a case u/s 2 A of the ID Act is all the more indispensable requirement to be established at the threshold by the workman.
14. Ld. AR for the workman further argued that the certificate dt.21.10.2015 issued by the Conciliation Officer clearly states that the workman had filed an industrial dispute on 25.08.2015 in the office of Deputy Labour Commissioner consequent upon his discharge/dismissal/retrenchment/ LC 1621/16 SH. RITESH KUMAR Vs. MS BAL SAHYOG SANSTHA Page No. 7 of 10 termination from the services. It is argued that notice of this claim was issued to the management which implies that the management had notice of the demands raised by the workman. It is argued that the dispute filed by the workman before the Labour Commissioner can be treated as a demand notice to the management and the failure to arrive at a settlement can be treated as rejection of the demand. It is argued that there is no specific form of a demand notice and the claim filed before the Conciliation Officer can be treated as the demand notice.
15. I have carefully perused the said certificate which states that the workman filed an industrial dispute u/s 2 A of the ID Act. The duties of the Conciliation Officer has been provided u/s 12 of the Act. Sub-section 1 provides that where any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, conciliation proceedings are to be held. Under Sub-section 2, an investigation is to be made for the purpose of bringing about the settlement. If a settlement is arrived at then a report is to be sent to the appropriate a Government under Sub-section 3. If no settlement is arrived at then investigation is to be closed and a full report is to be sent to the Government setting for the steps taken by him together with a full statement of facts and circumstances. These duties do not contemplate the issuance of a certificate as has been issued in the present case. At the most, this certificate can be seen for the purpose of the timelines as provided in Section 2 A of the Act which is expiry of 45 days from the date of making the application to the Conciliation Officer.
LC 1621/16SH. RITESH KUMAR Vs. MS BAL SAHYOG SANSTHA Page No. 8 of 10 At the most, the Conciliation Officer could give a report regarding the date of filing the dispute before him.
16. Even if this certificate is taken into consideration for a moment, for deciding the existence of industrial dispute, the said certificate is of no consequence as it does not state the exact nature of the dispute. It does not even clarify if it was a case of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination. All it states is that the industrial dispute was 'consequent upon' the discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination. There can be 'n' number of consequences of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination and it would be presumptuous to state that demand for reinstatement is the only consequence. In my opinion, the certificate can be read only for the purpose of examining the expiry of 45 days before entertaining the claim u/s 2 A of the Act and nothing beyond. This certificate cannot be taken as a substitute of a demand notice nor the industrial dispute filed before the Conciliation Officer can be treated as a demand notice.
17. It may be worthwhile to note at this juncture itself that under Sub-section 1 of Section 12 of the Act, the Conciliation Officer can hold the conciliation proceedings where any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended. It implies that the pre-existence of an industrial dispute which can exist if there is a demand notice and rejection thereof. Existence of industrial dispute is therefore a condition precedent to even approach the Conciliation Officer.
18. In the case in hand, admittedly the workman has not sent any demand notice to the management at any point of time LC 1621/16 SH. RITESH KUMAR Vs. MS BAL SAHYOG SANSTHA Page No. 9 of 10 seeking reinstatement, retrenchment compensation, back- wages, arrears of pay, etc. So there is no question of rejection of the demand. Consequently no industrial dispute came into existence before filing the present claim. The present claim u/s 2 A of the ID Act is accordingly not legally maintainable and is liable to be rejected.
19. In view of the discussion made herein above, the application of the management is allowed. The claim filed by the workman is hereby rejected.
20. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance. NEERAJ Digitally signed by NEERAJ GAUR GAUR Date: 2026.02.07 16:36:23 +0530 (NEERAJ GAUR) Presiding Officer Labour Court-1 Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi 07.02.2026 LC 1621/16 SH. RITESH KUMAR Vs. MS BAL SAHYOG SANSTHA Page No. 10 of 10