Delhi District Court
Manjur Ahmed vs M/S Test N Rai International on 10 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ARUN GOEL,
DISTRICT JUDGE: POLC - X
ROUSE AVENUE COURTS : NEW DELHI
LIR No. 2118/2017
Sh.Manjur Ahmed
S/o Sh. Abdul Hameed,
H.No. B118, Transit Camp,
Govindpuri, Kalkaji
New Delhi-110019
Through
Sh. Banwari Lal (President).
Delhi Readymade & Leather
Garments Karamchari Union,
(Regn. No. 4996) A 704 Transit Camp,
Govind Purn, Kalkaji,
South Delhi 110019
.......... WORKMAN
VERSUS
M/S Test-N-Rai International,
B-46/5, Okhla Industrial Area,
Phase II, New Delhi-110020 .......... MANAGEMENT
Date of institution of the case : 22.01.2018
Date of passing the Award : 10.07.2025
A W A R D:
1. A reference No. F.24(516)/Lab/sd/2017/12981 dated 04.07.2017 was
received from appropriate government for adjudication and disposal of
industrial dispute between the aforesaid claimant and the management
by formulating the following terms of reference:
LIR No. 2118/17 Page 1/13
"Whether the workman Sh. Manjur Ahmed S/o Sh. Abdul
Hameed, aged-45 years, has settled his account after
resigning from his services on his own or 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 this respect?"
2. A notice of the aforesaid reference was sent to the workman for filing
of his statement of claim. On 22.01.2018, AR for the workman
appeared and filed statement of claim, wherein it is stated that the
workman was in continuous employment with the management on the
post of 'Tailor' since 18.02.2014 and his last drawn wages were
Rs.10,600/- per month. During the course of employment, workman
was working with diligence, sincerity and honesty and he never gave
any chance of complaint to management. Thus, the service record of
workman was uninterrupted, meritorious and unblemished.
3. It is further stated in the claim that the management had not provided
various legal facilities to the Workman i.e., minimum wages, ESI, PF
attendance card, bonus, annual and weekly leave, appointment letter
etc. etc, which were orally demanded by the Workman from the
management time to time.
4. It is further stated in the claim that when the father of the workman
fell ill, he asked the managers for the facility of ESI card and leave for
LIR No. 2118/17 Page 2/13
his father's treatment, but the managers first refused, then made the
employee write a resignation letter from the job on 25.05.2016.
Thereafter, the workman was granted leave, but the managers adopted
an anti-labor policies started withholding the employee's earned salary
w.e.f. 01.08.2016 to 05.10.2016. It is further stated in the claim that
when the workman repeatedly demanded the same along with other
legal facilities from the management, it became annoyed and illegally
terminated the workman from his services illegally, arbitrarily and
unjustifiably without conducting any domestic enquiry against him and
violated the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act
when he had returned from the village.
5. Thereafter, the workman had also sent a demand letter dated
21.10.2016 to the management by speed post through union which was
served upon the management, however, despite service of the notice,
management had not given any reply.
6. Being aggrieved, workman had filed his statement of claim before
the Conciliation officer, Labour office, Nimri Colony, through union
and thereafter the management was issued notice for conciliation,
however, due to adamant attitude of the management, conciliation got
failed. Thereafter, on the comments of the Conciliation Officer, the
present reference was sent to Labour Court for adjudication.
LIR No. 2118/17 Page 3/13
7. It is further stated in the claim that despite best efforts, workman had
not get any job and is unemployed since his illegal termination by the
management. Hence, it is prayed by the workman that the management
be directed to reinstate him back to duty along with payment of
outstanding dues.
8. Thereafter, notice of the claim was issued to the management for
filing of written statement. Written statement has been filed on behalf of
the management wherein it is stated that no cause of action has accrued
to the workman to file the present claim against the management as
workman submitted his resignation voluntarily which was accepted by
the management on the same date.
9. It is further stated in the written statement that the workman has no
locus-standi to file the present claim and the same has been filed with
malfide intention just to harass the management because the workman
has not come with clean hands before this court. It is further stated in
the written statement that the workman is gainfully employed and he
left the job on his own as he had better job.
10. In the written statement management admitted that the claimant was
appointed on 18.02.2014 as Sampling Tailor and his last drawn salary
was Rs. 11,622/- per month, however, it is denied that his tenure was
unblemished and it is also denied that the management had not given
LIR No. 2118/17 Page 4/13
the facilities i.e., ESI, PF, Bonus, Minimum Wages to the claimant by
the day one.
11. It is further submitted in the written statement that the claimant has
left the job on his own on 21.05.2016 and the management sent call
letters dated 31.05.2016, 04.06.2016 and 11.06.2016 to the claimant
through Speed post but he did not turn up in his duty. It is further
submitted that the claimant came in the factory on 25.07.2016 and he
submitted his resignation voluntarily on the same day i.e., on
25.07.2016 and the resignation was accepted by the management and he
collected his full and final dues on the same day i.e., 13,502/- and he
executed his signatures as token of receipt of his full and final dues. It
is further submitted that he was paid an amount of Rs.2,263/- as his
Earned wages and he signed the voucher as token of the receipt.
12. In the written statement the management has denied all the
remaining contentions made by the workman in his statement of claim
and prayed that the present claim is liable to be dismissed.
13. Rejoinder to the aforesaid written statement has not been filed on
behalf of the workman despite sufficient opportunities. On completion
of pleadings of the parties, following issues were settled on 08.05.2019:
" 1. Whether claimant left the services/absented from
duties on his own & if so, its effect?..OPM
LIR No. 2118/17 Page 5/13
2. Whether the workman has settled his account after
resigning from his services on his own or his services
have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the
management and if so, to what relief is he
entitled?...OPW
3. Relief.
14. Thereafter, matter was listed for workman evidence. On 24.03.2021
Sh. Manjur Ahmed had tendered in evidence his examination in chief
by way of affidavit which is Ex.WW1/A and relied upon the following
documents: (i) Copy of complaint dated 24/10/2016 to Assistant Labour
Commissioner is Mark-A. (ii) Report of Labour Inspector dated
21/11/2016 is Ex.WW-1/1. (Objected to by AR for management w.r.t
mode of proof) (iii) Office copy of demand notice dated 21/10/2016 is
Mark-B. (iv) Original postal receipt is Ex. WW-1/2. (v) Copy of
statement of claim received in the Office of Conciliation Officer is Ex.
WW-1/3. He was cross examined at length by Sh. Mohit Nagar, AR for
the management and vide separate statement of the workman workman
evidence was also closed and the matter was adjourned for management
evidence.
15. In defence, management has produced Sh. Kamal Kant Khandelwal,
Hand Writing and Finger Prints Expert as MW-1. He tendered in
evidence, his examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex.MW1/A.
During his examination in chief, he stated the details of his examination
in his report was prepared by him and duly signed at point A and the
same is correct and the same was exhibited as Ex.MW1/1 (colly) (total
LIR No. 2118/17 Page 6/13
15 pages along with photo enlargements). He was cross examined by
Sh.Anil Rajput, AR for the workman. Thereafter, matter was listed for
remaining management evidence, however, at that stage both the parties
submitted that there were chances of settlement between the parties and
requested to refer the matter to mediation cell, however, matter has not
been settled between the parties and report of Mediation Cell has been
received on 04.09.2024 and thereafter, the matter was adjourned for
entire management evidence.
16. On 20.11.2024, when the matter was listed for management
evidence it was revealed that in the affidavit of MW-2 the management
had re-exhibited the documents which were already exhibited by the
workman during his evidence and it was noted that there was no need to
re-exhibit the documents freshly as the same were already exhibited and
fresh affidavit of witness was ordered to be filed on behalf of the
management for 15.01.2025. On 15.01.2025 fresh affidavit of evidence
was filed on behalf of the management, however, the order dated
20.11.2024 was not complied with. More time was sought on behalf of
the management for filing of fresh affidavit of witness and to comply
the order dated 20.11.2024. In the interest of justice one last and final
opportunity was given to the management subject to cost of rs.10,000/-
out of which Rs. 5,000/- was to be deposited in Central DLSA and
Rs.5,000/- to be given to the workman and the matter was adjourned for
management evidence.
LIR No. 2118/17 Page 7/13
17. On 26.03.2025, when the matter was listed for management
evidence, AR for the management had made a statement that he does
not wish to file fresh affidavit of evidence. It was noted that the matter
had been listed for management evidence since 21.05.2022 and the
management had been given sufficient opportunity to lead their
evidence, the evidence has not been completed by the management till
that date and the management had also not deposited the previous cost
imposed vide order 15.01.2025, accordingly, opportunity of the
management to lead further management evidence was closed and the
matter was listed for final arguments.
18. Arguments heard from both the parties. Record perused.
19. Now, in the light of evidence available on record and submissions
made on behalf of both the parties, my issue wise findings are as under:
ISSUES NO 1 & 2 :
20. The case of the workman is that he was appointed as a 'Tailor' by
the management w.e.f 18.02.2014 with last drawn salary @ Rs.
10,600/- per month. The workman is doing his job diligently without
any complaint. However, the management was not providing him with
legal facilities like minimum wages, ESI, PF, attendance card, bonus,
earned leaves, appointment letter etc. It is further submitted by the
workman that, when his father got ill, he requested the management for
LIR No. 2118/17 Page 8/13
ESI card for getting treatment of his father as well as leave, however,
the management refused. They further had got written his resignation
letter from the workman, subsequently,they did not pay earned wages
for the period 01.08.2016 to 05.10.2016 and terminated his services
illegally.
21. The management has filed their reply wherein they have not denied
the existence of employer-employee relationship, however, the
management had not denied that they have not provided him with legal
facilities. The management had claimed that he left his job on his own
on 21.05.2016. Thereafter, letters dated 31.05.2016, 04.06.2016 and
11.06.2016 were issued to the workman but he did not appear for his
duty, however, he subsequently came to duty on 25.07.2016 and
submitted his resignation. He voluntarily accepted full and final dues of
Rs.13,502/-. The management also paid him earned wages of Rs.
2,263/-. Thus, the management had stated that the workman had
submitted his resignation and settled his account.
22. The workman has examined himself as witness. During his
cross-examination, the management had put certain documents to him.
He admitted his signatures on the application undated Ex.WW1/M1,
bio-data form Ex.WW1/M2, application form Ex.WW1/M3,
appointment letter Ex.WW1/M4, nomination form for gratuity
Ex.WW1/M5, Employees States Insurance Certificate Ex.WW1/M7,
LIR No. 2118/17 Page 9/13
full and final settlement Ex.WW1/M9, full and final receipt
Ex.WW1/M10, Voucher Ex.WW/M11. However, he denied his
signature on Ex.WW1/M12, i.e. full and final payment receipt and
Ex.WW1/M6 i.e., Nomination and Declaration Form no.2. The
management had claimed that the workman has settled his account and
was paid Rs.13,502/-. The workman has admitted his signatures on full
and final receipt Ex. WW1/M10 it clearly shows that the workman had
settled his account with the management for a sum of Rs.13,502/-. The
voucher Ex.WW1/M11 further reveals that he had received an amount
of Rs.13,502/- in cash from the management. These documents clearly
establishes that the account has been settled and amount has been
received by the workman. The workman has, however, denied his
signatures on Ex.WW1/M8. In his claim, he has stated that his
signatures had been taken on the resignation letter at the time of
proceeding on leave. Thus, there is contradiction in his claim and in his
cross examination. He is claiming in his petition that he has signed the
resignation letter while in the cross-examination, he is denying his
signatures on the Ex.WW1/M8. The workman has further claimed in
his claim that he was not extended any legal facilities like ESI by the
management. The management had put Ex. WW1/M7 to the workman
who admitted his signatures. It is temporary identity card issued by the
Employees State Insurance Corporation. It clearly shows that the
workman has been provided with ESI facilities by the management. The
workman has further claimed that he was not paid minimum wages,
LIR No. 2118/17 Page 10/13
however, during cross-examination as well as his claim he admitted that
his last drawn salary was Rs.10,500/- which is as per minimum wages.
This shows that the workman has filed the present claim on the basis of
false facts. In a case titled as Diamond Toys Company (P) Ltd., vs.
Toofani Ram, WP(C) 4501/04, decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court
on 07/02/07, a case was filed by the workman alleging termination on
the ground that Management has not provided with legal facilities and
when he demanded the same his services were illegally terminated,
however, ultimately it was established that the services were actually
provided. The award was passed in his favour by the Trial Court but the
Hon'ble High Court set aside the award and made the following
observations:
"The very basis of the claim of the workman regarding
termination of his service by the management was that he
made demands for appointment letter and other legal benefits
under law and on making these demands the management got
annoyed and terminated his services. This basis got knocked
out when the workman admitted in his evidence that
appointment letter was issued to him and the legal benefits like
provident fund, ESI etc. were being given to him and he was
being paid wages after obtaining his signatures in the wage
register. He had not stated in his statement of claim - when he
put overtime, how much was his overtime which was refused to
him or when he applied for leave which was not granted to
him. Once, the basis on which a workman claimed that he was
terminated stands knocked out, a heavy onus shifts to the
workman to show that his services were actually terminated by
the management and to show the reasons for termination. The
termination is a positive act of the management and
LIR No. 2118/17 Page 11/13
management has to do this act for some reason. The respondent
was working as a helper. Helper is an unskilled person and appointed to do some job and unless there is some reason his service would not be terminated by the management. Moreover, the workman was working with the management for more than two years he had gained experience with the management during this period and had become more useful for the management day by day. Why the management should have terminated his services without any reason, when the statutory period of 240 days was already there and any break in service would not have helped management. The falsity of the claim of the workman is writ large. In the notice served upon the management, he described himself as a mechanic, which is a skilled workman. In the statement of claim he described himself as a karigar while actually he was appointed as an helper. He harped upon providing of legal facilities like appointment letter, ESI, Provident Fund, wage register etc. while he admitted in his cross examination that all legal facilities were being given to him."
23. Perusal of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court reveals that when the claim is based on false facts, an heavy onus is upon the workman to show that his services were terminated by the Management and also to show the reasons of termination.
24. Now the onus is upon the workman to show that his services have been terminated by the management, which he has failed to do so. On the other hand, the management has been able to show that the workman has submitted his resignation and has received settlement amount from them. The management has also examined hand writing LIR No. 2118/17 Page 12/13 expert Sh. Kamal Kant Khandelwal as MW-1, who had stated that the resignation letter Ex.WW1/M8, Nomination Form Ex.WW1/M5, ESIC Ex.WW1/M7, full and final payment Ex.WW1/12 bears the signatures of the workman. It is also relevant herein to mention that the workman had admitted his signatures on Ex.WW1/9 and Ex.WW1/11 at point A. In these documents, the signatures are being done on the revenue receipt. The signatures are appended on revenue receipt when payment is made by one person to other. This also shows that payment has been received by the workman. From all these facts, the management has been able to prove that the workman has voluntarily submitted his resignation and has received his settlement amount. Accordingly, both the issues are decided in favor of the management. RELIEF:
25. In view of my findings on issues no. 1 and 2, the claim of the workman is not maintainable and the same is dismissed. The present reference stands answered accordingly.
26. A copy of the award be sent to the appropriate Government for its publications as per rules.
27. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed ARUN byDate:ARUN GOEL Announced in open court GOEL 2025.07.14 14:57:36 +0530 on Dated: 10.07.2025 (Arun Goel) Presiding Officer, Labour Court - X Rouse Avenue Courts New Delhi: 10.07.2025 LIR No. 2118/17 Page 13/13