Delhi District Court
Rishabh vs M/S Swayam Swachtta Initiative Ltd on 27 March, 2026
Rishabh Vs. M/s Swayam Swachtta Initiative Ltd.
LIR No.906/2024
IN THE COURT OF DR. SURENDER MOHIT SINGH,
DISTRICT JUDGE
PRESIDING OFFICER: LABOUR COURT-08
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS: NEW DELHI
LIR NO.906/2024
CNR No.DLCT13-004992-2024
Sh. Rishabh
S/o Sh. Bittu
R/o NSKV School, Begampur,
MMTC/STC, Colony, New Delhi - 110017
Through: Sh. R.P. Singh (General Secretary)
Hindustan Mazdoor Congress,
B-577, Gola Kuan, Tehkhand, Okhla,
Phase-I, New Delhi - 110020
....Workman
VERSUS
M/s Swayam Swachtta Initiative Ltd.
A-217, Okhla Industrial Estate,
Phase-III, New Delhi - 110020
...Management
Date of Institution : 27.07.2024
Date of Award : 27.03.2026
AWARD
1.Reference under Section 10(1)(c) read with Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been received from Deputy Labour Commissioner, South-East District, Labour Welfare Centre, Bal Mukund Khand, Giri Nagar, Kalkaji, New Delhi setting out following dispute for adjudication by the Court:
"Whether the services of workman Sh. Rishabh S/o Sh. Bittu, Aged-27 years, Mob. No.7503513802 have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the Page No.1 of 16 Rishabh Vs. M/s Swayam Swachtta Initiative Ltd.LIR No.906/2024
management in disguise retrenchment; and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"
2. Statement of claim has been filed by workman Sh. Rishabh in pursuance to the present reference stating therein that he was employed with the management since 01.01.2022 on the post of 'Driver' and his last drawn monthly salary was Rs.18,526/-. He worked sincerely, honestly and diligently and has not given any chance of complaint to the management during his entire service tenure and has not got any warning or notice. He was not provided all the legal facilities as per labour law like appointment letter, leave book, overtime card, identity card, salary as per post, bonus and increment as per balance sheet, casual/festival leave, etc, by the management despite repeated requests and demand and management also not paid the outstanding dues towards legal facilities. The management terminated the services of workman on 01.02.2023 without prior information, written notice, charge sheet and without any reason in violation of provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. That he worked with the management for 240 days every year and has never left the job. He had never remained absent from job nor had taken his full and final settlement amount. He is unemployed since the date of termination by management and has not got any job despite best efforts. That management had taken his signatures on some blank papers and vouchers and also on the papers of settlement amount which they can misuse.
3. It is further averred that a demand letter dated 14.08.2023 was also got served upon management through speed post on Page No.2 of 16 Rishabh Vs. M/s Swayam Swachtta Initiative Ltd.
LIR No.906/2024seeking outstanding dues and reinstatement, but despite service of demand letter, management neither replied the same nor reinstate him back in service. A complaint was also lodged with the Assistant Labour Commissioner, South-East District, Delhi and accordingly notices were sent to the management for settling the matter, but management never appeared before the Assistant Labour Commissioner. The conciliation proceedings got failed due to adamant and non-co-operative attitude of the management and accordingly, a reference was made by Conciliation Officer for proper adjudication of the dispute. It is averred that at present he is unemployed, therefore, it is prayed that he be reinstated in service with full back wages and legal facilities along with interest @ 18% and all other consequential benefits.
4. Management M/s Swayam Swachtta Initiative Ltd. filed the written statement inter alia contending that workman joined the management company on 02.12.2022 as Driver and resigned on 20.04.2023 by submitting resignation letter and management has already paid his full and final settlement amount on 24.11.2023. It is contended that workman's attendance record was very poor and it shows his negligence towards his duty. All the other averments in the claim have been denied in corresponding paras of reply on merit and it is prayed that present claim petition be dismissed.
5. From the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed vide order dated 10.01.2025:-
1. Whether the services of the workman were terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management? OPW Page No.3 of 16 Rishabh Vs. M/s Swayam Swachtta Initiative Ltd.LIR No.906/2024
2. Whether the workman has worked continuously for 240 days in the year preceding termination of services? OPW
3. Whether the workman has resigned from his services on 20.04.2023 vide resignation letter and was also paid full and final settlement amount by management on 24.11.2023? OPM
4. Relief.
6. In support of his claim workman got examined himself as WW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. WW-1/A and relied upon following documents :-
Identification Mark Description Ex. WW-1/1 (OSR) Office copy of demand notice dated 14.08.2023.
Ex. WW-1/2 (OSR) Post receipts.
Ex. WW-1/3 Bank statements. 7. workman/WW-1 was cross-examined by AR for
management on 08.05.2025. During the course of cross- examination, WW-1 deposed that no document for joining the employment with management was issued. WW-1 deposed that he has not filed any document on record to show that he has asked any document from management w.r.t. his appointment. WW-1 admitted that he used to take leaves from the management during his employment due to which work gets hamper and management used to deduct the amount from his salary for the leaves. WW-1 deposed that he received the letter of termination from the management in April, 2023 which mentioned that he was terminated in February, 2023. WW-1 admitted that management has paid all his dues till last date of employment Page No.4 of 16 Rishabh Vs. M/s Swayam Swachtta Initiative Ltd.
LIR No.906/2024and nothing is due to be paid by the management. WW-1 deposed that he is not working anywhere currently. WW-1 admitted that he was not terminated by the management in February, 2023 and was told that he should take a break for two months.
8. WW-1 was further cross-examined on 14.05.2025 and he the printout copy of PF account which is exhibited as Ex. WW-1/M1 (Colly). WW-1 admitted that nothing is due and payable by the management as per the PF account statement produced in the court today. WW-1 denied that he has given the resignation letter to the company or that he has received full and final amount from the management and that nothing is payable by the management. WW-1 denied that he himself stopped attending the employment post 15.01.2023 and is not entitled for any relief. Vide separate statement workman closed evidence on 14.05.2025.
9. Management on the other hand got examined MW-1 Sh. Shashank Pathak, Assistant Manager who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. MW-1/A and relied upon following documents:-
Identification Mark Description Ex. MW-1/1 Authority letter. Ex. MW-1/2 Resignation letter. Ex. MW-1/3 Full and final settlement document. Ex. MW-1/4(Colly) Attendance record. Ex. MW-1/5 Certificate under Section 63 of BSA.
10. MW-1 was cross-examined by AR for workman on 14.07.2025 and during the course of cross-examination MW-1 Page No.5 of 16 Rishabh Vs. M/s Swayam Swachtta Initiative Ltd.
LIR No.906/2024admitted that no appointment letter was issued to workman. MW-1 deposed that management used to maintain attendance register, leave register, salary register of the workman. MW-1 admitted that in Ex. MW-1/4 there is no signature of any employee. MW-1 admitted that Ex. MW-1/2 does not bear the signature of workman. MW-1 deposed that attendance of the workman was used to be marked at the working field i.e. Okhla Phase-II of the management and it was used to be marked physically. MW-1 admitted that management has not filed record of attendance marked by workman physically. MW-1 denied that workman joined the management on 01.01.2022. MW-1 admitted that management has not placed on record to show that workman joined the management in December, 2022. MW-1 admitted that ID mentioned at Point-A in Ex. WW-1/M1 (Colly) bears the ID of management. MW-1 denied that workman worked continuously with the management from 01.01.2022 to 31.01.2023. MW-1 denied that demand notice Ex. WW-1/1 was duly served to the management and despite that the management has not replied the same. Vide separate statement AR for management has closed ME on 14.07.2025.
11. ARs for workman and management have addressed their submissions/arguments by adverting to pleadings and testimony in support of their respective contentions.
12. AR for the workman argued that the management's documents are fabricated, lacking the workman's signature, and were contradicted by the bank statement and PF records. He argued that the management failed to comply with Section 25F of Page No.6 of 16 Rishabh Vs. M/s Swayam Swachtta Initiative Ltd.
LIR No.906/2024the Industrial Dispute Act, rendering the termination illegal. In support of his contention, AR for workman relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India titled as ' Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak & Ors., Civil Appeal No.6767/2013 arising out of SLP (C) No.6778 of 2012'.
13. On the other hand, AR for management argued that the workman resigned and took full and final settlement. He argued that workman's (WW-1) own admission during cross- examination that he was not terminated in February, 2023 completely destroys his case. He argued that present claim petition may kindly be dismissed. In support of his contention, AR for management relied on the judgment passed by Sh. Manmohan Sharma, Ld. POLC-12, Karkardookma Courts, Delhi titled as 'Rakesh Peter Vs. M/s The Indian Newspaper Society & Anr., decided on 31.07.2010'.
14. I have minutely perused the record and considered their rival submissions.
Findings:
Issue no.2 Whether the workman has worked continuously for 240 days in the year preceding termination of services? OPW
15. The burden to prove this issued lies on the workman.
16. In order to prove that he worked continuously for the period of 240 days prior to termination he relied on some documentary evidences i.e. bank statements (WW-1/3) and PF Account Statement (Ex. WW-1/M1).
Page No.7 of 16Rishabh Vs. M/s Swayam Swachtta Initiative Ltd.
LIR No.906/202417. On perusal of bank statements it reveals a salary credit of Rs.3,392/- on dated 07.01.2022, Rs.6,783/- on dated 17.02.2022, Rs.8,137/- on dated 16.03.2022, Rs.10,743/- on dated 20.04.2022, Rs.2,921/- on dated 17.05.2022, Rs.6,502/- on dated 27.06.2022, Rs.1,806/- on dated 29.07.2022, Rs.11,657/- on dated 10.08.2022, Rs.6,411/- on dated 29.09.2022, Rs.14,454/- on dated 18.10.2022, Rs.8,905/- on dated 09.11.2022, Rs.11,042/- on dated 23.12.2022, Rs.2,374/- & Rs.6,530/- on dated 25.01.2023, from management, proving employment till January, 2023.
18. AR for the management raised an objection that in the absence of a certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act (now Section 63 of BSA, 2023) Ex. WW-1/3 cannot be relied upon.
19. It is settled law that in industrial adjudication the strict rules of evidence act are not followed and it is guided by the principles of equity and natural justice. Accordingly, this documentary evidence can be looked at for corroborative purposes. A workman cannot be expected to meticulously comply with technical procedures that might defeat the purpose of social welfare legislation. Accordingly, the contention of AR for the management is rejected.
20. On perusal of PF account statement (Ex. WW-1/M1) it reveals the management's name and ID and the deposit of contributions for the workman from January, 2022 to February, 2023. During cross-examination MW-1 admitted that the ID on Ex. WW-1/M1 belongs to the management. Ex. WW-1/M1 is an Page No.8 of 16 Rishabh Vs. M/s Swayam Swachtta Initiative Ltd.
LIR No.906/2024independent record that corroborates the workman's claim for long standing employment.
21. Both the documentary evidences (Ex. WW-1/3 and Ex. WW-1/M1) proves that the workman was in continuous employment with the management w.e.f. January, 2022 until February, 2023. Accordingly, I am of the considered opinion that the workman had worked with the management for more than 240 days prior to the alleged date of termination.
22. As discussed above, this issue is decided in favour of workman and against the management.
Issue no.3 Whether the workman has resigned from his services on 20.04.2023 vide resignation letter and was also paid full and final settlement amount by management on 24.11.2023? OPM
23. The burden to prove this issue lies upon the management.
24. In order to prove this issue the management heavily relied upon the documentary evidences i.e. resignation letter (Ex. MW-1/2), full and final settlement (Ex. MW-1/3) and attendance record (Ex. MW-1/4).
Resignation Letter (Ex. MW-1/2)
25. On perusal of resignation letter it reveals that this document does not bears the signature of the workman. MW-1 also admitted the aforesaid fact. It is settled law that an unsigned document has no evidentiary value. Further, MW-1's voluntary deposition that 'it was written by the workman in his handwriting' is unacceptable as neither this document bears the Page No.9 of 16 Rishabh Vs. M/s Swayam Swachtta Initiative Ltd.
LIR No.906/2024signature of workman nor any handwriting expert was called by the management to prove it's authorship. Accordingly, resignation letter (Ex. MW-1/2) is unreliable. Full and final settlement (Ex. MW-1/3)
26. On perusal of full and final settlement document it reveals that it is a computer generated document and also does not bear the signature of workman. Further, Ex. MW-1/3 is a self serving document created by the management and it directly contradicted by the workman's own documentary evidence (PF account statement). Ex. MW-1/3 shows the workman's service was for four months (from 20.12.2022 to 20.04.2023) while the PF account statement (Ex. WW-1/M1) which management witness (MW-1) admitted, clearly disclose that contributions were made for the workman from January, 2022 to February, 2023. On the basis of above evidences on record, the full and final settlement document (Ex. MW-1/3) is also unreliable.
Attendance record (Ex. MW-1/4)
27. During cross-examination MW-1 admitted that these records neither have a heading like attendance register nor bear the signature of any employee (including the workman). MW-1 also admitted that the original physically marked attendance records not produced by the management. Ex. MW-1/4 also appears to be a typed, reconstructed sheets with having no evidentiary value. Accordingly, attendance record (Ex. MW-1/4) is also unreliable.
28. As discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that management has miserably failed to prove that the workman had Page No.10 of 16 Rishabh Vs. M/s Swayam Swachtta Initiative Ltd.
LIR No.906/2024resigned and was also paid full and final settlement amount.
29. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the management and in favour of workman.
Issue no.1 Whether the services of the workman were terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management? OPW
30. The burden to prove this issue lies upon the workman.
31. AR for the management argued that during cross- examination the workman admitted that he was not terminated in February, 2023 and accordingly, his admission completely destroy his case and he failed to prove this issue. Per-contra, AR for the workman strongly argued that a single line should not be read in isolation and the entire case should be read to decide this issue.
32. On perusal of cross-examination of WW-1 it reveals that the workman has admitted that he was not terminated by the management in February, 2023 and he was told that he should take a break for two months.
33. The aforesaid admission of workman directly contradicts his own pleadings that his services were terminated on 01.02.2023. The workman by his own admission has failed to prove that, a formal 'termination' as pleaded, occurred. However, the question remains what happened in February, 2023? The evidence on record presents a unique situation where the workman admits he was not terminated in February, 2023, the management claims that he resigned in April, 2023 which they failed to prove, the PF record shows contributions stopped in Page No.11 of 16 Rishabh Vs. M/s Swayam Swachtta Initiative Ltd.
LIR No.906/2024February, 2023 corroborating with the date when workman stopped receiving salary and the workman deposed that he was told to take a break for two months.
34. The substance of workman's grievance is that he was forced to stop working by the management's direction to take an unpaid break.
35. The fact that he was told by the management that he should take a break for two months remains unrebuted.
36. This is an illegal action. It constitutes an unfair labour practice and an illegal forced leave without pay. The management's action in February, 2023 whether called a break or otherwise was without following due process and without compliance with Section 25F of I.D. Act. Therefore, while a technical plea of termination fails, the underline illegality is established.
37. As discussed above, the workman has failed to prove termination as pleaded but the management's action of forcing him to take an unpaid break is held to be an illegal and unjustified.
38. Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided partly in favour of workman to the extent that the cession of work was called by the management's illegal direction.
RELIEF:-
39. AR for the management argued that during cross- examination workman/WW-1 admitted that he filed the present case only for reinstatement and not for any other relief, accordingly, he is not entitled for any monetary compensation.
Page No.12 of 16Rishabh Vs. M/s Swayam Swachtta Initiative Ltd.
LIR No.906/202440. The argument of AR for the management is fundamentally flawed and is hereby rejected as he failed to distinguish retrenchment compensation and compensation in lieu of retrenchment.
41. Section 25F of I.D. Act reads as under:
42. "No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until:
(a) The workman has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice.
(b) The workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days 'average pay or any part thereof in excess of six months; and
(c) Notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government [or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette."
43. Section 11A of I.D. Act reads as under:
44. 11A. Powers of Labour Courts, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.
"Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Page No.13 of 16 Rishabh Vs. M/s Swayam Swachtta Initiative Ltd.LIR No.906/2024
Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require: Provided that in any proceeding under this section the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter."
45. Retrenchment compensation under section 25F of I.D. Act is a statutory minimum entitlement that an employer must pay to a workman at the time of a valid retrenchment. It is a condition precedent for a legal retrenchment. On the other hand, compensation in lieu of reinstatement under section 11A of the Page No.14 of 16 Rishabh Vs. M/s Swayam Swachtta Initiative Ltd.
LIR No.906/2024I.D. Act is a discretionary curative remedy awarded by a labour court after it has found that the termination/action of the management was illegal and that reinstatement is not being granted for specific reasons.
46. Industrial law is a form of social welfare legislation. The powers of labour court under Section 11A are wide and discretionary. It empowers the labour court to do substantial justice. When the primary relief for reinstatement is found to be not grantable due to a technical flaw, the court is not rendered powerless. It can mould the relief to address the injustice found.
47. The power to grant relief includes the power to grant an appropriate relief. The relief of compensation is not a new or different cause of action. It is an alternative form of redressal for the same injury.
48. Hence, I deem it appropriate to grant compensation to the workman instead of reinstatement with full back wages. Accordingly, statement of claim is allowed and considering the length of service and period of unemployment, nature of illegality, management's conduct, workman's conduct and the last drawn wages, a lump sum amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded to workman towards compensation.
49. Amount of compensation be paid to workman within two months from the date of award failing which management shall also pay interest @ 6% per annum on aforesaid amount from the date of award till the date of realization.
50. Reference stands answered in aforesaid terms.
Page No.15 of 16Rishabh Vs. M/s Swayam Swachtta Initiative Ltd.
LIR No.906/202451. Copy of Award be sent to Deputy Labour Commissioner, South-East District, Labour Welfare Centre, Bal Mukund Khand, Giri Nagar, Kalkaji, New Delhi for publication.
52. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally
Announced in the open court on signed by
SURENDER
Dt: 27.03.2026 SURENDER MOHIT
MOHIT SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.03.28
16:37:42
+0530
(Dr. Surender Mohit Singh)
District Judge/POLC-08
RACC, New Delhi
Page No.16 of 16