Delhi District Court
Vijay Kuamr Jha vs Vimal Pan Masala Through Its Director ... on 12 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS RICH SINGH,
DISTRICT JUDGE & ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT - IV, ROUSE
AVENUE COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
LIR No.1270/2024
CNR NO. DLCT13-007293-2024
Sh. Vijay Kumar Jha S/o Sh. I. K. Jha
R/o H. No. 678, Plot No. 26, Gali No. 05,
Sainik Enclave, Sector -02,
Mohan Garden New Delhi 110059 .........Workman
vs.
(1) M/s Vimal Pan Masala
Through its Director Sh. Ashok Kumar Lalwani
R/o A-9/33, Vasant Vihar New Delhi 110057
(2) M/s G4S Secure Solutions (India) Pvt Ltd.
C-16 Community Centre, Janakpuri, Behind
Janak Cinema, Janakpuri, New Delhi 110058
..........Managements
Date of Institution : 10.12.2024
Date of Argument : 29.01.2026
Date of Award : 12.02.2026
Decision : Claim allowed qua management
no. 2.
LIR No. 1270/2024 Vijay Kumar Jha vs M/s Vimal Pan Masala & Ors.
Page No. 1 /18
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 dated
03.12.2024 u/s 10(1)(c) and 12 (5) of The Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, wherein the following reference was to be answered :-
"Whether the service of Sh. Vijay Kumar
Jha S/o I. K. Jha aged about 51 years, have
been terminated illegally and /or
unjustifiably by the managements; and if so,
to what relief is he entitled and what
directions are necessary in this respect?"
THE CLAIM OF THE WORKMAN
2. Notice of the reference was issued to the workman.
Pursuant thereto, AR of the workman appeared before Court and
file statement of claim.
3. The workman Sh. Vijay Kumar Jha has asserted in his
statement of claim that he had been working at the residence of
Sh. Ashok Kumar Lalwani, Director of M/s Vimal Pan Masala
(management no.1) through M/s G4S Secure Solutions (India)
Pvt Ltd (management no.2) since 03.08.1999, on the post of
Head Guard and his last drawn monthly salary was Rs. 16,792/-.
He had been performing his duty sincerely, honestly, diligently,
without any complaint by his superiors.
LIR No. 1270/2024 Vijay Kumar Jha vs M/s Vimal Pan Masala & Ors.
Page No. 2 /18
4. The workman has further claimed in his statement of
claim that during his employment with the managements, he was
not provided with any legal facilities like ESI card, PF receipt,
yearly bonus, leave encashment, leave book, pay slip, overtime
allowance, appointment letter etc.
5. It is stated in statement of claim of the workman that
when he repeatedly demanded the above said legal facilities from
the managements, then managements got annoyed and with
intent to take revenge, management had forcibly obtained her
signatures on documents typed in English as well as on blank
documents and he was illegally and unjustifiably terminated from
his services by management on 15.01.2023, without any reason,
without notice, without pay notice and that this act of the
management is violative of section 25F, 25G, 25 H of Industrial
Disputes Act and Rules 77 and 78 of ID (Central) Rules.
6. Workman has claimed that even after his termination,
he kept visiting managements for resuming his job, but
managements had not allowed him to resume his duty. It is
stated in statement of claim of the workman that he had sent
demand notices to both the managements on 10.07.2023 through
his Union, challenging his illegal termination and seeking his
reinstatement and back wages from the managements, but
managements have not paid any heed to it.
7. It is alleged that on 20.09.2023, the workman had
represented his case before the Conciliation Officer, however,
representative of the managements had neither appeared before
the Conciliation Officer nor reinstated the workman and the
Conciliation Officer had referred the case before for adjudication.
LIR No. 1270/2024 Vijay Kumar Jha vs M/s Vimal Pan Masala & Ors.
Page No. 3 /18
8. Workman has alleged that termination of services of
workman by the managements was illegal, without issuance of
show-cause notice to him and without conducting any domestic
enquiry. Workman has asserted that since his termination, he had
been jobless, despite best efforts to find job and suffering from
mental agony.
9. It is stated in statement of claim of the workman that
while terminating the services of the workman, managements
had not paid his dues of his salary.
10. By way of present claim, workman has prayed that an
award be passed in his favour and against managements directing
the management to reinstate him in service alongwith full back
wages and other consequential benefits.
11. Notice of the statement of claim was issued to both the
managements.
12. Notice issued to management no.1 received back with
the report that the Security Guard of management no.1 after
telephonically informing about the notice of present case to
Manager of management no.1, had refused to receive the notice
and in view of report of process server, this Court had concluded
that management no.1 had been properly and duly served with
the notice of present case and since despite due service of notice,
management no.1 had not appeared before the Court and
therefore, management no. 1(M/s Vimal Pan Masala) was
proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 05.05.2025.
13. Notice was also issued to the management no. 2 who
had entered appearance on 21.03.2025 through its AR and since
then management no.2 had been given repeated opportunities to
file its WS as well as extension of time for filing its WS, but
LIR No. 1270/2024 Vijay Kumar Jha vs M/s Vimal Pan Masala & Ors.
Page No. 4 /18
management no. 2 has failed to file its WS, even after extension
of time beyond 90 days and therefore, right of the management
no. 2 to file WS was closed and accordingly, defence of
management no. 2 was struck off vide order dated 17.07.2025.
ISSUES
14. Vide order dated 17.07.2025, the following issues were
framed:-
(1) Whether the services of the workman
Sh. Vijay Kumar Jha have been terminated
illegally and /or unjustifiably by the
management ? OPW
(ii) Relief
EVIDENCE OF WORKMAN
15. In order to prove the case, the workman has examined
himself as WW1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit
Ex. WW-1/A wherein he has reiterated his version on solemn
affirmation. Besides this, he had also placed on record the
following documents:-
(i) Copy of demand letter dated 10.07.2023 (OSR)
(ii) Copy of postal as well as tracking report receipts Ex. WW1/2 (Colly)
(iii)Copy of ID card issued by management Ex. WW1/3 (OSR).
(iv)Copy of his aadhar card is Ex. WW1/4 (OSR)
16. Workman was cross-examined by Ld. AR for the
management no.2 and as per submissions of AR for the
workman, workman evidence was closed vide order dated
11.09.2025.
17. Thereafter, matter was listed for management evidence.
LIR No. 1270/2024 Vijay Kumar Jha vs M/s Vimal Pan Masala & Ors.
Page No. 5 /18
18. The defence of management no.2 was struck of vide
order dated 17.07.2025, thus the written statement of
management no.2 is not on record. However, management no.2
had examined MW1 Sh. Ghanshyam Singh Sisodia as its witness
which was not objected to by workman or his AR and this
witness was also cross-examined by AR for the workman.
19. Thereafter, written submissions were filed by the
workman and management no.2. Judgments have been filed on
behalf of management no.2 Same has been perused. This Court
has heard detailed final arguments addressed by AR for the
workman and AR of the management no.2 and thoroughly
perused the record and documents on record.
20. Issue-wise findings of this Court are as under.
ISSUE NO.1
(I) Whether the service of the workman Sh. Vijay
Kumar Jha have been terminated illegally and /or
unjustiably by managements?OPW
21. The onus to prove this issue was on workman.
22. The claim of the workman is that he had been working
at the residence of Sh. Ashok Kumar Lalwani, Director of M/s
Vimal Pan Masala (management no.1) through M/s G4S Secure
Solutions (India) Pvt Ltd (management no.2) since 03.08.1999 as
'Head Guard' and his last drawn monthly salary was of Rs.
16,792/-. The workman has claimed that when he demanded
legal facilities and benefits from the management, the
management had illegally terminated him on 15.01.2023, without
prior notice, without any notice pay and without conducting
LIR No. 1270/2024 Vijay Kumar Jha vs M/s Vimal Pan Masala & Ors.
Page No. 6 /18
inquiry and that his termination by management, violates
Section 25F, Section 25G & Section 25H of ID Act.
23. Workman has alleged that he had sent demand notice
dated 10.07.2023 via speed post, through his Union to the
management.
24. In the case at hand, management no. 1 had failed to
enter appearance before this Court, despite being duly served
with notice of case and therefore, management no.1 was
proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 05.05.2025. Even otherwise,
it is workman's own claim that he was employee of management
no.2 and that management no. 2 had deputed him to work in
management no.1. Thus, since the workman has conceded that he
was employee of management no.2 only and was working in
management no.1 on direction of management no.2, therefore, no
question of termination by management no.1 arises.
25. Management no. 2 had entered appearance, but despite
repeated opportunities given to management no. 2 on 21.03.2025
and again on 05.05.2025, management no. 2 had failed to file its
written statement, even after extension of time granted for filing
of its written statement. Considering that management no.2 had
failed to file its written statement even after grant of more than
90 days, this Court vide order dated 17.07.2025 had closed the
right of management no.2 to file its written statement and
accordingly, its defence was struck off.
26. In order to discharge the onus of proving his
employment in management no.2 since 1999, workman has
relied on identity cards, purportedly issued to him by
management no. 2, which are Ex. WW1/3. He was cross-
LIR No. 1270/2024 Vijay Kumar Jha vs M/s Vimal Pan Masala & Ors.
Page No. 7 /18
examined in detail by AR of management no.2 but AR of
management no. 2 had not been able to elicit any contradiction or
inconsistency in his testimony so as to discredit this witness.
Instead, the workman had voluntarily clarified during his cross-
examination that he had initially joined the management no.2 in
1996 and then there was break in his service and he had rejoined
management no. 2 in 1999 and the testimony of workman on this
point that he had been working in management no.2 since 1999,
without any break in service, has remained unrebutted,
uncontroverted and unchallegned and thus, there is no reason to
doubt the testimony of workman on this point.
27. The plea of management no.2 that the job of the
workman was of supervisory nature has been denied by the
workman in his cross-examination as the workman had denied
that he was working in supervisory capacity in management no.
2, while working as 'Head Guard' in management no.2 during
the said period and voluntarily clarified that in the management
no. 2, there was post of 'supervisor' above that of the 'Head
Guard' and that it was the 'supervisor' who had 'supervisory
duties' and not the 'Head Guard'. The testimony of workman on
the point has also not been rebutted by the AR of management
no.2 and the version of the workman had remained intact on this
point.
28. Even though the defence of management no. 2 was
struck off vide order dated 17.07.2025, yet management no. 2
had examined its witness Sh. Ghanshyam Singh Sisodia as
MW1, to which AR of workman had not raised any objections
and AR of workman had also cross-examined the said witness of
management no. 2.
LIR No. 1270/2024 Vijay Kumar Jha vs M/s Vimal Pan Masala & Ors.
Page No. 8 /18
29. The testimony of workman that he was illegally
terminated by management no.2 on 15.01.2023, without
compliance of mandatory statutory provisions of ID Act, 1947,
has remained intact as Ld. AR of management no.2 had failed to
discredit the workman in his cross-examination by bringing out
any inconsistency or contradiction and has failed to bring on
record any credible material to rebut the claim of workman that
he was illegally terminated by management no. 2 on 15.01.2023.
30. In the present case, even if for sake of arguments,
defence plea of management no.2 is considered that workman
had been unauthorizedly absent from duty, even then this plea is
bound to fail as admittedly no notice of absenteeism or charge
sheet for absenteeism was issued to workman by management
no.2. No such material, that is, any notice/ show cause notice or
memo issued by management no.2 to the workman asking him to
join the duty, has been placed on record by the management no.2.
31. Therefore, in absence of any cogent credible evidence
on record, this Court cannot presume that the workman had left
the services of management no.2 on his own 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/employer 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 enquiry is required to be ordered
against him and accordingly action taken and in the absence of
LIR No. 1270/2024 Vijay Kumar Jha vs M/s Vimal Pan Masala & Ors.
Page No. 9 /18
anything placed on record by the 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.
32. Thus, from ocular and documentary evidence led by
parties on this point, it is clear that workman has succeeded in
establishing that he was illegally terminated by management no.2
and there is nothing on record to indicate that workman had
voluntarily abandoned job of management no.2.
33. In view of foregoing observations, issue no.1 is decided
in favour of the workman and against the management no.2. As
already held, since management no.1 was not the employer of
workman, therefore, no question of his termination by
management no.1 arises.
RELIEF
34. The workman herein has sought the relief of
reinstatement in the service with full back wages along with the
continuity of service and all the consequential benefits.
35. During recording of testimony of the workman on
11.09.2025, he had stated that he was of 52 years of age as on
that date and he has prayed for his reinstatement in management
no. 2.
36. As already held, management no. 1 was not the
employer of the workman and therefore, workman is not entitled
to any relief from management no.1.
37. 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;
LIR No. 1270/2024 Vijay Kumar Jha vs M/s Vimal Pan Masala & Ors.
Page No. 10 /18
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
place again in a former state, condition, or office, to restore to a
state or position from which the object or person had been
removed'.
38. In cases of wrongful termination of service,
reinstatement with continuity and back wages is the normal rule
as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase
v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya and Ors., (2013) 10
SCC 324. The concept of reinstatement was also discussed
therein:
"The very idea of restoring an employee to the
position which he held before dismissal or removal
or termination of service implies that the employee
will be put in the same position in which he would
have been but for the illegal action taken by the
employer. The injury suffered by a person, who is
dismissed or removed or is otherwise terminated
from service cannot easily be measured in terms of
money..... The reinstatement of such an employee,
which is preceded by a finding of the competent
judicial/quasi-judicial body or court that the action
taken by the employer is ultra vires the relevant
statutory provisions or the principles of natural
justice, entitles the employee to claim full back
wages. If the employer wants to deny back wages to
the employee or contest his entitlement to get
consequential benefits, then it is for him/her to
specifically plead and prove that during the
intervening period the employee was gainfully
employed and was getting the same emoluments.
The denial of back wages to an employee, who has
suffered due to an illegal act of the employer would
amount to indirectly punishing the employee
concerned and rewarding the employer by relieving
him of the obligation to pay back wages including
the emoluments." (emphasis supplied).
LIR No. 1270/2024 Vijay Kumar Jha vs M/s Vimal Pan Masala & Ors.
Page No. 11 /18
39. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepali Gundu
Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya and Ors.
(Supra), laid down the following principles to govern the
payment of back wages:
"In cases of wrongful termination of service,
reinstatement with continuity of service and back
wages is the normal rule. 38.2 The aforesaid rule is
subject to the rider that while deciding the issue of
back wages, the adjudicating authority or the court
may take into consideration the length of service of
the employee/workman, the nature of misconduct,
if any, found proved against the
employee/workman, the financial condition of the
employer and similar other factors.
Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose
services are terminated and who is desirous of
getting back wages is required to either plead or at
least make a statement before the adjudicating
authority or the court of first instance that he/she
was not gainfully employed or was employed on
lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid
payment of full back wages, then it has to plead and
also lead cogent evidence to prove that the
employee/workman was gainfully employed and
was getting wages equal to the wages he/she was
drawing prior to the termination of service. This is
so because it is settled law that the burden of proof
of the existence of a particular fact lies on the
person who makes a positive averment about its
existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact
than to prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the
employee shows that he was not employed, the
onus lies on the employer to specifically plead and
prove that the employee was gainfully employed
and was getting the same or substantially similar
emoluments. 38.4 The cases in which the Labour
Court/Industrial Tribunal exercises power under
Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
and finds that even though the enquiry held against
the employee/workman is consistent with the rules
of natural justice and/or certified standing orders, if
any, but holds that the punishment was
disproportionate to the misconduct found proved,
then, it will have the discretion not to award full
back wages. However, if the Labour
Court/Industrial Tribunal finds that the employee or
workman is not at all guilty of any misconduct or
LIR No. 1270/2024 Vijay Kumar Jha vs M/s Vimal Pan Masala & Ors.
Page No. 12 /18
that the employer had foisted a false charge, then
there will be ample justification for award or full
back wages. 38.5 The cases in which the competent
court or tribunal finds that the employer has acted
in gross violation of the statutory provisions and/or
the principles of natural justice or is guilty of
victimising the employee or workman, then the
court or tribunal concerned will be fully justified in
directing payment of full back wages. In such cases,
the superior courts should not exercise power under
Article 226 or 136 of the Constitution and interfere
with the award passed by the Labour Court, etc.
merely because there is a possibility of forming a
different opinion on the entitlement of the
employee/workman to get full back wages or the
employer's obligation to pay the same. The courts
must always keep in view that in the cases of
wrongful/illegal termination of service, the
wrongdoer is the employer and the sufferer is the
employee/workman and there is no justification to
give a premium to the employer of his wrongdoings
by relieving him of the burden to pay to the
employee/workman his dues in the form of full
back wages."
40. 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
LIR No. 1270/2024 Vijay Kumar Jha vs M/s Vimal Pan Masala & Ors.
Page No. 13 /18
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."
41. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter titled as
Thomas Reuters Private Limited vs. Ld. Presiding Officer,
Labour Court & Ors. cited as MANU/DE/2665/2021, dated
30.09.2021 has held that in cases of illegal dismissal, the normal
rule is reinstatement with full back wages and relevant paras are
reproduced herein :
"102. In view of the conspectus of the aforesaid
judgments, be it ingeminated that whenever an
employee is dismissed, removed or terminated and
the action of the employer is found to be illegal, the
normal rule, albeit subject to exceptions, is that the
employee should be restored to the position which
he or she held before the umbilical cord broke
between the employer and the employee. As noticed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the word
'reinstatement' means to reinstall/re-
establish/restore to the earlier position or former
state, condition or office.
"106. Recent trend of judgments shows that Courts
have been holding that reinstatement may not be a
natural or automatic consequence of setting-aside of
dismissal order. However, reading of the two
aforesaid judgments and other recent judgments, in
my considered view, leads to an inevitable
conclusion that for the purpose of grant of relief of
reinstatement, Courts have always understood and
appreciated the difference in the nature of
employment of the employee as well as the length
of service. In the present case, Respondent No.2
was a regular employee, with over nineteen years of continuous and unblemished service and clearly LIR No. 1270/2024 Vijay Kumar Jha vs M/s Vimal Pan Masala & Ors.
Page No. 14 /18falls within the axiomatic jurisprudence and legal regime laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Tin Works (supra) and not in the exceptions in the later judgments.
"119. On a reading of the above conspectus of judgments and the principles propounded in Deepali Gundu (supra), it is clear that the law on back wages is no longer res integra. In cases of wrongful termination, reinstatement with back wages is the normal rule, subject to course to a caveat that while deciding the issue of back wages, Courts may take into consideration a host of factors, such as length of service of the employee, financial condition of the employer, etc. The employee is required to plead that he or she was no gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages. As observed in Deepali Gundu (supra), in cases where the Competent Court or Tribunal finds that employer has acted in gross violation of statutory provisions and/or Principles of Natural Justice, etc. then it shall be fully justified in directing payment of full back wages and in such cases, Superior Courts should not exercise powers under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution of India and interfere with the Award, only because there is possibility of forming a different opinion. Hon'ble Supreme Court has also struck a note of caution that Courts must always keep in view that in cases of wrongful termination, wrongdoer is the employer and sufferer is the employee/workman and thee is thus no justification to give a premium to the employer for their wrongdoing by relieving them of the burden to pay back wages."
42. The principle of law which emerges from analysis of judicial precedents is that grant of reinstatement with full back wages is the normal rule when termination is found to be illegal, especially, in situations where services of regular or permanent workman is terminated illegally or malafidely and reliance in this regard is also placed on judgment of Anoop Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1 Panipat (2010) 5 SCC 497. Similarly in Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. (1979) 2 SCC 80 , LIR No. 1270/2024 Vijay Kumar Jha vs M/s Vimal Pan Masala & Ors.
Page No. 15 /18wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had held that relief of reinstatement with continuity of service can be granted when termination of service is found to be invalid. It is also pertinent to note that regular service of permanent character cannot be compared to short or intermittent daily wage employment, as held in General Manager Roadways Vs. Dudan Singh 2005 SCC (2 & 5) 716.
43. In present case, the workman was working in management no. 2 since 03.08.1999 and management no. 2 had further deployed him in management no.1 and workman had worked with management no.2 for approximately 24 years, before his termination on 15.01.2023.
44. Therefore, in light of legal position discussed hereinabove and considering that the case of the workman does not fall in any of the categories as mentioned by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tapas Kumar Paul Vs. BSNL & Anr. (Supra), this Court holds that the workman is entitled to reinstatement in service of the management no.2, with continuity of service and other consequential benefits.
45. Further, the workman in his statement of claim has alleged that he has been unemployed since the date of his illegal termination by management no.2 and despite his best efforts to find job, he had not been able to find any alternative job and during his cross-examination, management no. 2 has not been able to show that the workman herein was gainfully employed elsewhere, either by summoning relevant witnesses or proving the documents, as per law.
46. It is relevant to note that even the workman has not discharged the burden of proving the efforts made by him to LIR No. 1270/2024 Vijay Kumar Jha vs M/s Vimal Pan Masala & Ors.
Page No. 16 /18secure 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."
47. 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 failed to prove that he had made efforts to search for job during the period of his unemployment, shall dis-entitle him to grant of full back wages for period of his unemployment, though, he is entitled to 'resonable' back wages.
LIR No. 1270/2024 Vijay Kumar Jha vs M/s Vimal Pan Masala & Ors.
Page No. 17 /1848. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the workman is entitled to back wages @ 20 % of his last drawn salary for the period from date of his termination (i.e. from 15.01.2023) till date of this Award.
49. Thus, this Court holds that the workman is entitled for reinstatement in services of the management no.2 on the same post, on which he was working on the date of his termination alongwith all consequential benefits as well as relief of back wages computed at rate of 20 % of last drawn salary for the period, from the date of his termination (i.e. 15.01.2023) till the date of this Award.
50. With these observations, Issue no.2 is disposed off.
51. Management no.2 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.
52. The reference is answered accordingly in favour of the workman and against the management.
53. Award is passed accordingly.
54. Digitally signed copy of Award be uploaded on the website of RADC. A copy of the award be sent to the concerned Dy. Labour Commissioner for publication as per rules.
55. File be consigned to the Record Room. Digitally signed by RITU RITU SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.02.12 16:32:12 Announced in Open Court (Ritu Singh), +0530 on 12th February 2026 District & Sessions Judge, Presiding Officer, Labour Court - IV, Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi.
LIR No. 1270/2024 Vijay Kumar Jha vs M/s Vimal Pan Masala & Ors.Page No. 18 /18