Delhi District Court
Reena Khatana vs M/S Vrs Foods Ltd on 19 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. ARCHANA BHALLA,
DISTRICT JUDGE/ POLC-V,
ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX,
NEW DELHI
LIR No : 250/21
CNR No. DLCT13-00360-2021
In the matter of :
Smt. Reena Khatana,
W/o Sh. Sher Singh,
Mobile No. 9711268685,
R/o H. No. C-12/2, Trikha Colony, Ballabhgarh, Faridabad,
Haryana.
......Workwoman/ Claimant.
Versus
1. M/s VRS Foods Ltd.,
D-55, Ground Floor, East of Kailash, New Delhi-110065.
2 M/s Mira Corporate Suites,
B1 & B2, Ground Floor, Ishwar Nagar,
Mathura Road, New Delhi-110065.
..Managements/ Respondents.
Date of Institution : 04.02.2021
Date of pronouncement of the judgment : 19.07.2025
JUDGMENT
PART-A REFERENCE The Dy. Labour Commissioner, Govt of NCT, Delhi while exercising his power U/S 10 (1) (c) and 12 (5) of the Industrial Dispute Act, (hereinafter refer to as the Act) r/w LIR No. 250/21 Page No. 1 of 24 Reena Khatana vs. M/s VRS Foods Ltd. & Ors.
Ministry of Labour Notification No. S-110011/2/75/DK(IA) dated 14.04.1975 and Notification No. F.1/31/61/616/Estt./ 2008/7458 dated 03.03.2009 vide letter no. F-24(-377-)/Lab./SD/2020/13029 dated 08.10.2020 has sent the following reference to this court for adjudication :-
"Whether the services of Smt. Reena Khatana, W/o Sh. Sher Singh, Aged-29 years (Mobile No.-9711268985) have been terminated illegally and/or unjustified; and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"
PART B - STATEMENT OF CLAIM
1. The Claimant has submitted in her statement of claim that she was working with the management as management trainee on 01.03.2013 on stipend of Rs.15,050/- and after completion of training period, the company confirmed her job and offered the post of Executive in HR Department w.e.f. 01.03.2014 on the CTC of Rs.2,10,600/-.
2. It is further claimed that she performed her duties sincerely and with full dedication, gave increment on 10.10.2016 and her salary was increased form Rs.19,550/- to Rs.24,487/-. It is further claimed that she was promoted to Senior Executive and salary was increased from Rs.24,487/- to Rs.28,649/- and further increased to Rs.33,787/- from 17.10.2018.
3. It is further claimed that in the year 2019, she came to know about her pregnancy and she informed the same to the management that she would go on maternity leave as and when advised by the doctor.
LIR No. 250/21 Page No. 2 of 24Reena Khatana vs. M/s VRS Foods Ltd. & Ors.
4. It is further claimed that on 04.05.2019, she sent a formal e-mail to management through management no.2 informing the tentative period of delivery and applied for leave from 06.05.2019 which was duly accepted and approved.
5. It is further claimed that management did not credit the salary of May, 2019 and she wrote several e-mails and made telephone calls and after a long follow up, the salary for the month of May, 2019 was paid to her. Thereafter, management paid the salary for the month of June, 2019.
6. It is further claimed that she informed management that her maternity leave would only be till 06.09.2019 and her re- joining date would be 07.09.2019.
7. It is further claimed that she received the e-mail dated 23.08.2019 sent by management no.2 stating that her position in the organization had been abolished from the structure and therefore, there was no further need of her service.
8. It is further claimed that she had been serving the organization since 2013. It is further claimed that she sent a legal notice dated 28.09.2019 to management, but the management paid no heed.
9. Workwoman in her statement of claim has prayed for her outstanding salary from the months of July, 2019 upto date alongwith statutory maternity benefits and also Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for the harassment, mental pain alongwith full back wages and all other consequential benefits.
LIR No. 250/21 Page No. 3 of 24Reena Khatana vs. M/s VRS Foods Ltd. & Ors.
PART-C MANAGEMENT'S STAND/REPLY
10. It is submitted on behalf of management that the job description of workwoman was conducting hiring process, screening resume, leading administrative projects etc, hence, the workwoman is not a workman as defined under Section 2 (K) of ID Act. The management further denied the averments made by workman in her statement of claim.
PART-D REJOINDER
11.The Claimant denied the submissions made by the management in the Written Statement and reiterated the submissions made by her in her Statement of Claim.
PART-E ISSUES
12. From the pleadings of the parties, the Court, vide its order dated 04.07.2022 and 13.12.2022 had framed the following issues for trial, reading as under : -
Issue No. 1 - Whether the claimant is workman as defined under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? OPW Issue No. 2 - Whether the services of the workman have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management? OPW Issue No. 3:- Whether the workman is entitled for reinstatement of his services and also consequential LIR No. 250/21 Page No. 4 of 24 Reena Khatana vs. M/s VRS Foods Ltd. & Ors.
benefits attending thereto? OPW Issue No. 4 - Relief.
PART-F CLAIMANT'S EVIDENCE
13. Claimant examined herself as WW-1 and tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.WW1/A, and also relied upon the documents which are as follows :
i) Copy of Training letter dated 01.03.2013 vide Ex. WW1/1 (OSR).
ii) Copy of confirmation/ appointment letter dated 01.03.2014 vide Ex.WW1/2 (OSR).
iii) Copy of increment letter dated 10.10.2016 vide Ex.WW1/3 (OSR).
iv) Copy of increment letter dated 28.02.2018 vide Ex.WW1/4.
v) Copy of increment letter dated 17.10.2018 vide Ex.WW1/5.
vi) Copy of e-mail dated 27.04.2019 vide Ex.WW1/6.
vii) Copy of email dated 04.05.2019 vide Ex.WW1/7.
viii) Copy of birth certificate of workman's son vide Ex.WW1/8.
ix) Copy of email dated 12.06.2019 vide Ex.WW1/9.
x) Copy of email emails at page 26 of SOC vide Ex.WW1/10.
xi) Copy of email dated 29.07.2019 vide Ex.WW1/11.
xii) Copy of email dated 22.08.2019 vide Ex.WW1/12.
xiii) Copy of Whatsapp messages dated 14.06.2019 vide Ex.WW1/13.
LIR No. 250/21 Page No. 5 of 24Reena Khatana vs. M/s VRS Foods Ltd. & Ors.
xiv) Copy of legal notice dated 28.09.2019 vide Ex.WW1/14.
xv) Photocopies of postal receipts vide Mark-A. xvi) Copy of order/ reference dated 08.10.2020 vide Ex.WW1/16.
14. During her cross examination, she admitted that she had signed the statement of claim and the evidence affidavit after understanding the contents thereof and nothing had concealed therefrom. She admitted that she was a workman. She deposed that she had filed her statement of claim under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. She further deposed that she had joined the management on 01.03.2013 as a Trainee on salary of Rs.15,050/- per month.
15. She further deposed that at the time when she was trainee, she used to take attendance of the employees of the consumer product division/sales department. She further deposed that the employees of the sales department used to message MIS who thereafter used to inform her for the said attendance. She further deposed that she was confirmed by the management on 01.03.2014 on the post of HR (Executive) on a salary of Rs.17,550/- per month. She further deposed that when she was confirmed in the department, she started doing the said work of trainee independently and report to manager. She further deposed that she had never received the letters for under performance and warning letters for her services with the said department. She further deposed that she had received the letter for promotion of her duties. She further deposed that the salary increment was decided by the HR (Head) on the basis of the performance of the LIR No. 250/21 Page No. 6 of 24 Reena Khatana vs. M/s VRS Foods Ltd. & Ors.
employees. She further deposed that during the material time, there was no trainee in the said department.
16. She further deposed that when she used to take leave, she used to message to her Reporting Manager. She further deposed that she did not have any record regarding the leaves taken by her. She further deposed that she worked as HR (executive) till the year 2017 and thereafter in the year 2018 she was promoted as Senior Executive (HR) on a salary of Rs.28,649/- per month. She further deposed that at the time when she was promoted as the Senior Executive (HR), she used to look after joining formalities of new joinees, make their records, maintain database of their personal and professional information and to look after daily needs of the Admin. and scheduled the interviews and follow-up to the existing sales teams and to the new joinees. She further deposed that she also used to issue offer letters to the new joinees and existing staff for confirmation, appointment, promotion, relieving letters. She further deposed that she used to look after the employees allocated in the Administration Branch who were around 3-4 people. She further deposed that she took approximately a week's leave twice during her wedding in the year 2016. She further deposed that she got to know in the year 2018 that she was pregnant and intimated her office for her pregnancy on 04.05.2019 to her reporting manager Smt. Rekha Tyagi and Sh. A.K. Upadhyay, HR (Head) of the management. She further deposed that she applied for her maternity leave as per law. She further deposed that she intimated to her Reporting Manager Smt. Rekha Tyagi that she would rejoin her services in the month of September, 2019. She admitted that her maternity leaves were accepted and approved by Smt. Rekha Tyagi who LIR No. 250/21 Page No. 7 of 24 Reena Khatana vs. M/s VRS Foods Ltd. & Ors.
informed Ms. Anshu to look after any communication in this regard to Ms. Bhavika Singh. She further deposed that she was blessed with a son namely Harjeet on 25.05.2019. She further deposed that she was advised by the doctor after her pregnancy for bed rest for which she could produce the prescription of her doctor. She further deposed that she had received the salary for the month of May and June, 2019 but not received any salary thereafter. She further deposed that she was never intimated about abolishment of her post and was only told about the same in the month of August, 2019 when she sent an E-mail to her reporting manager for rejoining. She admitted that in the month of November, 2019 her counsel sent legal notice to the management. She admitted that she did not know whether the legal notice was received by the management or not. She denied that the management never received the legal notice. She further deposed that she had not worked with any establishment after her last working day with the management/company. She further deposed that she gave many interviews but could not get the job on the reason that a case has been filed against her previous employer (M/s VRS Foods Ltd.).
17. She further deposed that she did not make any complaint in respect of the purported demand except the Conciliation Officer. She further deposed that she did not have any document showing that she was offered a job from different employers/ establishments. She further deposed that she was aware of the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 through which the maternity benefits are governed. She further deposed that in the year 2019, she was the only bread earner of her family. She denied that she was deposing falsely.
LIR No. 250/21 Page No. 8 of 24Reena Khatana vs. M/s VRS Foods Ltd. & Ors.
18. Thereafter WE was closed.
PART-G MANAGEMENT EVIDENCE
19. Mr. Sunny Verma, Legal Manager from management examined himself as MW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.MW1/A.
20. During his cross examination, he deposed that he had joined the management in mid November, 2023. He admitted that he had not filed his appointment letter as a Legal Manager issued by the management on record. He further deposed that he knew the earlier authorized AR in this case whose name was Sh. Deepak Singh Panwar. He further deposed that he did not know where Sh. Deepak Singh Panwar is presently working and presently, Sh. Deepak Singh Panwar is not working in the management company. He further deposed that he could not say that when Sh. Deepak Singh Panwar had left the company. He further deposed that he had never met with Sh. Deepak Singh Panwar.
21. He further deposed that he knew the facts mentioned in the written statement filed on behalf of the management. He further deposed that he knew Ms. Rekha Tyagi who was working earlier with the management. He further deposed that presently, she is not working with the management company. He further deposed that he did not know when Ms. Rekha Tyagi left the management company. He further deposed that he had never met LIR No. 250/21 Page No. 9 of 24 Reena Khatana vs. M/s VRS Foods Ltd. & Ors.
with Ms. Rekha Tyagi. As per record, he told that Ms. Rekha Tyagi was Senior Coordinator HR. He did not remember whether management had filed any document on record to show that Ms. Rekha Tyagi left the management.
22. Witness had gone through the Court file and could not find any such document to show Ms. Rekha Tyagi left the management. On perusal of the case record, he told that the document Ex.WW1/10 shows that Ms. Rekha Tyagi had told Ms. Reena Khatana that the organization had abolished the post under which Ms. Reena Khatana was working with the management company vide E-mail. He admitted that in document Ex.MW1/A, no date, month and year have been mentioned when the post on which Ms. Reena Khatana was working was abolished. He admitted that he had not filed any document/ board resolution to show that management had abolished the post on which Ms. Reena Khatana was working under the management company. He did not remember the exact date, month and year as to when the post under which Ms. Reena Khatana was working under the management company. He admitted that he had not filed any board resolution/ document on court record to show that work of Ms. Reena Khatana was handed over to Ms. Rekha Tyagi as mentioned in para 6 of Ex.MW1/A. He further deposed that there was no such document to be filed when any claimant resigns/ terminated from the management company and the work assigned to the claimant was automatically done by the senior staff.
23. He further deposed that he did not remember the exact dates as to when Ms. Reena Khatana took leaves from the LIR No. 250/21 Page No. 10 of 24 Reena Khatana vs. M/s VRS Foods Ltd. & Ors.
management company but it was for a long time which was for her maternity. He further deposed that after maternity leave, the claimant did not join the management company. He further deposed that no show cause notice had been issued by the management when Ms. Reena Khatana did not join the management after maternity leave. He further deposed that he had not filed any document in support of averment made in para no. 7 of Ex.MW1/A.
24. He further deposed that he did not remember as to whether management had issued any termination letter to the claimant. He admitted that management did not initiate any enquiry proceedings against the claimant. He further deposed that Ms. Reena Khatana was working in the management company as Senior Executive HR. He further deposed that Ms. Reena Khatana joined the services of the management on 01.03.2013 as Management Trainee. He further deposed that he could not tell the exact date as to when Ms. Reena Khatana worked with the management company. He further deposed that the last salary drawn by Ms. Reena Khatana from the management company was approax. Rs.33,000/- which was in the year 2018. He further deposed that he could not tell exact month and date in which the salary was Rs.33,000/-.
25. He denied that the post of claimant was never abolished by the management company. He further denied that work of claimant was never handed over to Ms. Rekha Tyagi. He further denied that Ms. Rekha Tyagi had never left the job of the management or is still working under the management company. He further denied that Ms. Reena Khatana was never terminated LIR No. 250/21 Page No. 11 of 24 Reena Khatana vs. M/s VRS Foods Ltd. & Ors.
and continues to be in service under the management company.
26. He denied that he was not sure whether the management has removed the claimant legally/ illegally. He further denied that the claimant is entitled for the claim as mentioned in the claim petition. He further denied that he was not aware about the facts of the present case as all the correspondence related to the period when he was not in the service of the management.
PART-H FINDINGS/CONCLUSION
27. Arguments were heard on behalf of both the parties.
28. After considering the claim, reply, documents and the evidence led on record by the parties, the issue wise decision of the court is as under :-
Issue No. 1 - Whether the claimant is workman as defined under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? OPW Decision on Issue No. 1 - In the present matter, the claimant has stated in her statement of claim that she had joined as Manager Trainee on 01.03.2013 and after 01 year of successful completion of her training period, the company confirmed her job and she was posted as Executive (HR Department) on 01.03.2014. During the year 2018, she was promoted as Senior Executive (HR).
29. In their written statement, the management has averred that the job description of the workman was to conduct hiring LIR No. 250/21 Page No. 12 of 24 Reena Khatana vs. M/s VRS Foods Ltd. & Ors.
process, screening resume, maintaining coordination with senior officers of the company, new employees induction, manpower budgeting, leading administrative projects, verifying salary reports of the employees working in the management office etc. Hence, the claimant herein is not a workman as defined under Section 2 (s) of the ID Act.
30. To determine the above stated issue it is important to see the definition of workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Act. Section 2(s) of the Act defines workman as:
"workman" means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person--
(i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or
(ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or
(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or
(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding one thousand six hundred rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature."
31. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.K.Maini v. Carona Sahu Co. Ltd. (1994 AIR 1824) has held that "Whether or not an employee is a workman under Section 2(s) of the Act is required to be determined with reference to his principal nature of duties and functions. Such question is required to be determined with reference to the facts and circumstances of the case and materials on record and it is not possible to lay down any straitjacket formula which can decide the LIR No. 250/21 Page No. 13 of 24 Reena Khatana vs. M/s VRS Foods Ltd. & Ors.
dispute as to the real nature of duties and functions being performed by an employee in all cases....."
"the determinative factor is the main duties of the employee concerned and not some works incidentally done. In other words, what is, in substance, the work which employee does or what in substance he is employed to do. Viewed from this angle, if the employee is mainly doing supervisory work but incidentally or for a fraction of time also does some manual or clerical work, the employee should be held to be doing supervisory works. Conversely, if the main work is of manual, clerical or of technical nature, the mere fact that some supervisory or other work is done by the employee incidentally or only a small fraction of working time is devoted to some supervisory work, the employee will come within the purview of Section 2(s) of the Act."
32. The onus to prove that the claimant is a 'workman' within the definition as provided under Section 2 (s) of the ID Act is no doubt upon the workman. During her cross-examination, the claimant had deposed that as a trainee, she used to take attendance of the employees of the consumer product division/ sales department. When she was confirmed on the post of HR Executive, she started doing the said work of trainee independently and would report to her manager. When she was promoted as Senior Executive (HR), she used to look after joining formalities of new joinees, make their records, maintain database of their personal and professional information and to look after the daily needs of administration and schedule the interviews and follow-up of the existing sales team and new joinees. She also used to issue offer letter to the new joinees and existing staff for confirmation, appointment, promotion and relieving letters. She also used to look after the employees allocated in the administration branch who were around 3-4 people.
LIR No. 250/21 Page No. 14 of 24Reena Khatana vs. M/s VRS Foods Ltd. & Ors.
33. The workman has relied upon her training letter dated 01.03.2013 vide Ex.WW1/1 and her confirmation/ appointment letter dated 01.03.2014 vide Ex.WW1/2 (colly.). Neither of these letters, issued by the management, detail the exact nature or scope of her work as HR Executive or Senior HR Executive. However, considering that the management has not provided the details of the nature or scope of her duties in the HR Department, the claimant cannot be expected to prove the nature of duties through any documentary evidence and the Court must rely upon the testimony of the claimant as well as her cross- examination or the evidence adduced by the management to contradict her testimony.
34. The management has argued that the job description of the workman was to conduct hiring process, screening resume, maintaining coordination with senior officers of the company, new employees induction, manpower budgeting, leading administrative projects, verifying salary reports of the employees working in the management office etc. Since the claimant has also deposed in her cross-examination that she was looking after 3-4 employees in the administration branch, she was actually a supervisor and therefore, not a workman as defined in Section 2 (s) of ID Act.
35. The management has relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as M/s Ircon International Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors. in W.P. (C) 6728/2002 dated 06.07.2015, where the workman had not disclosed the nature of his duties in his statement of claim nor in the rejoinder filed before the Labour Court. However, in the LIR No. 250/21 Page No. 15 of 24 Reena Khatana vs. M/s VRS Foods Ltd. & Ors.
present case, though the claimant has not given the details of her nature of duties in her statement of claim nor filed any rejoinder to the written statement filed by the management, she has described the scope of her duties during her cross-examination. In another judgment relied upon by the management, titled as Lenin Kumar Ray vs. M/s. Express Publications (Madurai) passed on 21.10.2024 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, where the claimant had deposed in his testimony that he was not an executive cadre employee and there were senior officers to supervise and control his work but in his cross-examination, he had asserted that he was supervising the work of 02 juniors who were working under him.
36. However, the facts of both the abovesaid judgments relied upon by the management are clearly different from the facts of the present case. In the instant case, the claimant has discussed the scope of her duties at length during her cross-examination. She has deposed in her cross-examination that she used to look after joining formalities of new joinees, make their records, maintain database of their personal and professional information and to look after daily needs of the administration and schedule the interviews and follow-up to the existing sales teams and to the new joinees. She further deposed that she also used to issue offer letters to the new joinees and existing staff for confirmation, appointment, promotion, relieving letters. She further deposed that she used to look after the employees allocated in the Administration Branch who were around 3-4 people. Therefore, very clearly, from the testimony of the claimant, it emerges that she was required to perform clerical/ operational kind of work and her duties were not managerial or LIR No. 250/21 Page No. 16 of 24 Reena Khatana vs. M/s VRS Foods Ltd. & Ors.
supervisory in nature. She clearly had no authority to select or appoint persons. She had no role in planning and execution and no authority to appoint or select persons of her choice. The nature of her duties falls within the category of operational/ clerical work and far from supervisory or managerial. The management has not be able to contradict her testimony nor has any literature been produced by the management to contradict the testimony of the claimant. The management has not even disclosed the names of the employees, who they claimed were under her supervision.
37. Ld. counsel for the claimant has relied upon the judgment titled as Delta Jute & Industries Ltd. Staff Association and Ors. vs. State of West Bengal and Ors . passed by Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in WP (C) No. 20574 of 2013 passed on 02.02.20215, wherein it has been laid down in para no. 12 that, "the Word 'supervisor' in its ordinary sense means a person who oversees the work of others. It necessarily follows that there are persons working under the supervisor who keeps the watch over their work. The supervisor examines and keeps the watch over the subordinates and entrust the duty to see that the work under the industrial unit is in accordance with manual if there is such or in accordance with usual procedure. If the nature of the work is such that it does not require to look after and examine the works of the persons who are subordinate to him, the person cannot be said to be a supervisor. The supervisor, therefore, is to supervise the man and not the plant and machinery. Mere incidental duties to supervise the work when the main duties is clearical in nature will not convert the employment into one in supervisory capacity as held by the Supereme Court in case of Ananda Bazar LIR No. 250/21 Page No. 17 of 24 Reena Khatana vs. M/s VRS Foods Ltd. & Ors.
Patrika (supra) in following words:
"The question, whether a person is employed in a supervisory capacity or on clerical work, in our opinion, depends upon whether the main and principal duties carried out by him are those of a supervisory character, or of a nature carried out by a Clerk. If a person is mainly doing supervisory work, but, incidentally or for a fraction of the time, also does some clerical work, it would have to be held that he is employed in supervisory capactiy; and, conversely, if the main work done is of clerical nature, the mere fact that some supervisory duties are also carried out incidentally or as a small fraction of the work done by him will not convert his employment as a Clerk into one in supervisory capacity. This principle finds support from the decisions of this Court in South Indian Bank Ltd. vs. A.R. Chacko and Management of M/s May and Baker (India) Ltd. v. Their workmen."
38. After considering the only evidence on record on this aspect, which is only the testimony of the claimant during her cross-examination, pin points to the fact that she is covered within the definition of 'workman' as stated in section 2(s) of the ID Act. No suggestion has been put to her by the management on the said aspect. Management has not brought any material on record to prove that she was not a 'workman'. Merely stating that the workman was looking after 3-4 people in the administration branch cannot be interpreted to mean that she was employed in any supervisory capacity or having managerial role in the management. She has nowhere stated that she was supervising the work of these 3-4 employees in the administration branch.
39. Hence, this issue is decided in favor of the claimant and it LIR No. 250/21 Page No. 18 of 24 Reena Khatana vs. M/s VRS Foods Ltd. & Ors.
is held that she was a workman/ workwoman as defined under section 2(s) of the Act.
Issue No. 2 :- Whether the services of the workman have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management? OPW Decision on Issue No. 2 :- It is the admitted case of the management that the claimant has been terminated from the services of the management. However, the management has taken the stand in its written statement as well as the evidence affidavit Ex.MW1/A that during the tenure of her service, the claimant was warned on various occasions to improve her performance, but the claimant made no efforts to enhance her performance. However, the management has not filed any evidence to support this claim of the management. No written warnings or letters or e-mails have been filed by the management to support this claim. Rather, the claimant has filed her increment letters showing enhancement in her salary vide letters dated 10.10.2016 (Ex.WW1/3), letter dated 28.02.2018 (Ex.WW1/4) and increment letter dated 17.10.2018 (Ex.WW1/5). It is also not denied by the management that she was also promoted to the post of Senior Executive. It belies the claim of the management that the claimant was doing shoddy work and was not making any efforts to improve her work.
40. The management is also not denying that the claimant had proceeded on maternity leave and the same were duly sanctioned by the management. Rather, the management has claimed that the claimant was terminated from services by the management as her position in the management was abolished as her work had LIR No. 250/21 Page No. 19 of 24 Reena Khatana vs. M/s VRS Foods Ltd. & Ors.
become redundant after being handed over to Ms. Rekha Tyagi. The same is not a valid ground for termination of her services by the management as it is evident that her post has been abolished without any proper paper work/ literature/ Board Resolution, in order to avoid paying her maternity benefits during her period of leave and the services of the claimant have been terminated unceremoniously after she had proceeded on maternity leave and without complying with the conditions as laid down in Section 25 (F) of ID Act. The claimant was not even intimated about her post being abolished and was informed of the same only in the month of August, 2019 when she sent an email to her reporting manager with regard to rejoining the service under the management after completion of her maternity leave. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the claimant and against the management.
Issue No. 3- Whether the workwoman is entitled for reinstatement of her services along with consequential benefits attending thereto? OPW Decision on Issue No. 3 :- The claimant has made a prayer in her statement of claim that an award may be passed in her favour and against the management holding her termination from work as illegal and directing the management to reinstate her in service with continuity of service and with full back wages and all consequential benefits along with costs. However, reinstatement and backwages cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
41. On this point, this court finds support from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur v Phool Chand (D) LIR No. 250/21 Page No. 20 of 24 Reena Khatana vs. M/s VRS Foods Ltd. & Ors.
Through Lrs.1, in which it was held that "In our considered opinion, the Courts below completely failed to see that the back wages could not be awarded by the Court as of right to the workman consequent upon setting aside of his dismissal/termination order. In other words, a workman has no right to claim back wages from his employer as of right only because the Court has set aside his dismissal order in his favour and directed his reinstatement in service."
It further held that It is necessary for the workman in such cases to plead and prove with the aid of evidence that after his dismissal from the service, he was not gainfully employed anywhere and had no earning to maintain himself or/and his family. The employer is also entitled to prove it otherwise against the employee, namely, that the employee was gainfully employed during the relevant period and hence not entitled to claim any back wages. Initial burden is, however, on the employee."
It further held that "In some cases, the Court may decline to award the back wages in its entirety whereas in some cases, it may award partial depending upon the facts of each case by exercising its judicial discretion in the light of the facts and evidence. The questions, how the back wages is required to be decided, what are the factors to be taken into consideration awarding back wages, on whom the initial burden lies etc. were elaborately discussed in several cases by this Court wherein the law on these questions has been settled. Indeed, it is no longer res integra. These cases are, MP State Electricity Board v. Jarina Bee (Smt.) 2, G.M. Haryana Roadways vs. Rudhan Singh3, U.P. State Brassware Corporation vs. Uday Narain Pandey4, J.K. Synthetics Ltd. vs. K.P. Agrawal & Anr. 5, Metropolitan Transport Corporation vs. V. Venkatesan6, Jagbir Singh vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board & Anr.7 and Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. 1 Civil Appeal No.1756 of 2010 (date of decision 20.09.2018) 2(2003) 6 SCC 141 3(2005) 5 SCC 591 4(2006) 1 SCC 479 5(2007) 2 SCC 433 6(2009) 9 SCC 601 7(2009) 15 SCC 327 LIR No. 250/21 Page No. 21 of 24 Reena Khatana vs. M/s VRS Foods Ltd. & Ors.
Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya
(D.Ed.) & Ors".1
It further held that
"The Court is, therefore, required to keep in consideration several factors, which are set out in the aforementioned cases, and then to record a finding as to whether it is a fit case for award of the back wages and, if so, to what extent."
42. In Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya(D.Ed.) & Ors.2, for awarding back wages certain propositions have been laid down by the Court.
43. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Indian Hydraulic Industries Pvt. Ltd v. Krishan Devi and Bhagwati Devi & Ors.3 has held that "even if the termination of a person is held illegal, Labour Court is not supposed to direct reinstatement along with full back wages and the relief can be moulded according to the facts and circumstances of each case. The Court has to adopt a pragmatic approach and take into account the allegations made by the work-women, the nature of contribution by the work-women to the industry, the time gap and averments made about the unemployment and proof of unemployment as the relevant factors to be considered in such cases. The Labor Court can allow compensation to the workman instead of reinstatement and back wages."
44. In K.V Anil Mithra and Anr. v. Sree Sankracharya University of Sanskrit and Anr.4 it has been further held that "What appropriate relief the workman may be entitled for regarding non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act 1947 has been discussed in various cases and the ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with full back wages, when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied mechanically in all cases".
1 (2013) 10 SCC 324.
2 (2013) 10 SCC 324.
3 ILR (2007) I Delhi 219 4 CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 9067 OF 2014 DoD 27.10.2021 LIR No. 250/21 Page No. 22 of 24 Reena Khatana vs. M/s VRS Foods Ltd. & Ors.
45. Keeping in view the above legal propositions, it has to be kept in mind that the claimant has not placed on record any document to show as to what efforts she had made to get another job on her being unemployed. She has merely stated during her cross-examination that she had given many interviews but could not get any job due to the present case being filed against her previous employer. Though the management has averred in their evidence affidavit that the workman is gainfully employed and is earning handsomely, the same is denied by the workman in her cross-examination. However, the management has also failed to file any proof in support of their contention that the claimant is in gainful employment as on this day.
46. Therefore, keeping in view all these facts-
a) that claimant was not allowed to join on duty after she had proceeded on maternity leave;
b) she was constructively terminated from service w.e.f. July, 2019;
c) that the management terminated her service illegally and unjustifiably;
d) that she had worked with the management for about 06 years;
e) that claimant has not proved what efforts were actually made by her to find a job for herself since the termination of her service;
and also keeping in view the aforesaid law points, this Court deems it appropriate to grant lumpsum compensation i.e. the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs Only) to the claimant in lieu of her reinstatement and all other consequential benefits. The amount of compensation shall be paid to the claimant by the management within one month from the date when this award LIR No. 250/21 Page No. 23 of 24 Reena Khatana vs. M/s VRS Foods Ltd. & Ors.
becomes enforceable failing which the amount shall carry an interest @ 8% p.a. from the date it becomes due till the time it is realized.
47. With these observations the statement of claim of the claimant filed under the provisions of the Act is disposed off.
48. Reference is answered and disposed off accordingly.
49. Let copy of the award be sent to the appropriate Govt for its publication as per rules.
Digitally signedARCHANA by ARCHANA BHALLA Announced in the open Court BHALLA Date: 2025.07.19 15:30:24 +0530 on 19.07.2025 (ARCHANA BHALLA) DISTRICT JUDGE/ POLC-V, ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX NEW DELHI.
LIR No. 250/21 Page No. 24 of 24Reena Khatana vs. M/s VRS Foods Ltd. & Ors.