Delhi District Court
Anand Kumar vs M/S Rapid Action Security Of India And ... on 8 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SUJIT SAURABH, PRESIDING
OFFICER, LABOUR COURT-IX, ROUSE AVENUE
DISTRICT COURT, NEW DELHI
LIR No. 1759/2021
CNR No. DLCT13-003389-2021
Anand Kumar Vs. M/s Rapid Action Security of India & Ors.
Sh. Anand Kumar
S/o Sh. Gulab Singh
R/o A-388, Gokul Puri,
Delhi-110094 ....... Workman
VERSUS
1.M/s DAV Public School, East of Loni Road, Delhi- 110093 Through Its Principal.
2. M/s Rapid Action Security of India, T-695/E, Gali No. 21, Baljeet Nagar, New Delhi, Delhi-110008 Through Its Proprietor, Skand Singh Chauhan ...... Management(s) Date of Institution : 09.10.2021 Date of Award : 08.12.2025 AWARD
1. This is a reference under Section 10(1)(C) read with Section 12 (5) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (in short, 'ID Act'). The reference has been sent to the court for adjudication by Deputy Labour Commissioner, East District, Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi, vide reference order dated 24.03.2021, bearing LIR No. 1759/2021 Digitally signed by Anand Kumar Vs. M/s Rapid Action Security of India & Ors. Page 1 of 19 SUJIT SUJIT SAURABH SAURABH Date:
2025.12.08 16:39:57 +0530 endorsement F. No. 24(32) ID/12/NE/20/Lab. Ref./2021 7 23. The reference emanates from the industrial dispute between the workman namely Sh. Anand Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the 'Workman') and the managements of M/s DAV Public School, East of Loni Road, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Management No.1') and M/s Rapid Action Security of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'Management No.2'). The terms of reference read as follow:
"Whether the services of workman Sh. Anand Kumar S/o Sh. Gulab Singh 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 the respect?"
2. Upon receipt of the reference, notice of the reference was issued to the workman. The workman appeared before the court and filed statement of claim.
3. Vide order dated 09.03.2022, notice of the statement of claim was issued to the managements. The notice was served upon the managements.
4. As per order dated 19.04.2022, management no.1 put up appearance through authorized representative (in short, 'AR'). However, written statement was not filed on behalf of management no.1. Vide order dated 25.05.2022, right of the management no.1 to file written statement was closed and the management was proceeded ex-parte.
Written statement was filed on behalf of management no.2. Rejoinder to the written statement of management no.2 was filed on behalf of the workman.
Digitally signed by LIR No. 1759/2021 SUJIT SUJIT SAURABH Anand Kumar Vs. M/s Rapid Action Security of India & Ors. Page 2 of 19 SAURABH Date:
2025.12.08 16:40:05 +0530 STATEMENT OF CLAIM
5. Brief facts, as culled out from the statement of claim, are as follows:
On 15.03.2015, the workman was employed in the establishment of M/s DAV Public school, Shalimar Garden, Sahibabad, as security guard. On 16.03.2016, he was transferred to the DAV Public School, East of Loni Road Delhi i.e. management No.1. He had been employed through M/s Rapid Action Security of India i.e. management No.2. The management no.2 was a contractor employed by the management No.1. The workman worked under complete control and supervision of management No.1. He worked continuously and without any break since the date of his appointment till the date of his termination.
The managements were neither maintaining records of employees as required under labour laws nor they were providing wage slips, appointment letter etc. They were not maintaining attendance register, muster roll, wage register, over time register etc. The managements had deprived the workman of all legal benefits such as holidays, overtime wages, bonus, leaves etc. He was also deprived of benefits of ESIC and Provident fund (PF).
The workman was continuously demanding benefits of overtime wages, holidays etc. and ESIC and PF account numbers but not to avail.
On 17.09.2019, the workman reiterated his demands to the management no.2 for disclosing provident fund account number, UIN and ESIC account number as he wanted to withdraw some money from his provident fund account. Instead of providing the provident fund and ESIC account numbers, the managements Digitally LIR No. 1759/2021 signed by SUJIT Anand Kumar Vs. M/s Rapid Action Security of India & Ors. Page 3 of 19 SUJIT SAURABH SAURABH Date:
2025.12.08 16:40:18 +0530 terminated his services on 17.09.2019 without assigning any reason.
Through his union, the workman served a demand notice dated 06.02.2020 upon the managements demanding reinstatement in service. However, he did not get any response from the managements. Thereafter, he raised a conciliation proceeding before conciliation officer. The conciliation proceeding resulted in failure. Hence, this reference.
The workman has stated that he had worked continuously, without any break, w.e.f. 15.03.2015 till the date of termination of his service on17.09.2019 and as such he had worked for more than 240 days in every year of service preceding the date of termination of his service. He has alleged unemployment since the date of termination of his service. He has stated that he could not secure any gainful employment despite his best efforts. He has prayed for reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service along with all consequential benefits.
WRITTEN STATEMENT
6. It has already been noted that the defence of management no.1 has been struck off and same is ex-parte.
The management no.2 has admitted employer-employer relationship. However, it has disputed the date of appointment of the workman. It has denied allegation of termination of service of the workman. It is defence of the management no.2 that the workman was appointed by it on 16.03.2016 at the post of security guard and he was deputed in the establishment of management no.1. The workman was transferred from the address of management no.1 to DAV Public School, Rajinder Nagar-2, LIR No. 1759/2021 Digitally Anand Kumar Vs. M/s Rapid Action Security of India & Ors. Page 4 of 19 signed by SUJIT SUJIT SAURABH SAURABH Date:
2025.12.08 16:40:25 +0530 Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, U.P. However, the workman did not join his duty at the place of transfer. He was unauthorizedly absent from his duty since 16.09.2019.
Rest of the claims and allegations in the statement of claim have been denied by the management no.2.
ISSUES
7. Vide order dated 09.06.22, Ld. Predecessor of this court, framed following issues for determination:
1. Whether the workman abandoned the job by not joining the services of management no.2 at the transferred place and unauthorizedly stopped reporting duty w.e.f. 16.09.2019? OPM.
2. Whether the services of the workman were terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the managements and if so, to what consequential relief is the workman entitled for? OPW.
3. Relief.
WORKMAN'S EVIDENCE (WE)
8. The workman led evidence in support of his claim.
Sole witness examined on behalf of the workman is workman himself. He stepped in the witness box as WW1 and tendered his affidavit in evidence Ex. WW1/A. He relied upon following documents:
i. Postal receipt of demand notice Ex. WW1/1, ii. Copy of claim filed before conciliation officer Ex. WW1/2, iii. Copy of ID Card Ex. WW1/3, LIR No. 1759/2021 Anand Kumar Vs. M/s Rapid Action Security of India & Ors. Page 5 of 19 Digitally signed by SUJIT SUJIT SAURABH SAURABH Date:
2025.12.08 16:40:32 +0530 iv. Copy of bank account statement Mark- A and v. Copy of PF account statement.
MANAGEMENT'S EVIDENCE (ME)
9. No evidence was led on behalf of the management no.1. At the sake of repetition, it is mentioned that the management no.1 was proceeded ex-parte and it remained ex-parte throughout the proceedings.
9.1 The management no.2 also examined only one witness in its favour. Sh. Skand Singh, proprietor of the management no.2, examined himself as MW1. He tendered his affidavit in evidence Ex. MW1/A. FINAL ARGUMENTS
10. I have heard arguments on behalf of both the contesting parties. The parties have reiterated their pleadings.
ISSUE WISE FINDING
11. Employer-employee relationship is not disputed by the contesting management i.e. management no2. It is not in controversy whether the workman falls within the definition of 'workman' as defined under section 2(s) of I.D. Act or not. It is not in dispute that the managements are industries within the definition of 'industry' under Section 2(j) of the I.D. Act. It is also not in dispute that the dispute is an industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the I.D. Act.
The workman claims that he was in continuous service of the managements and he had worked for more than 240 days in LIR No. 1759/2021 Digitally signed by Anand Kumar Vs. M/s Rapid Action Security of India & Ors. Page 6 of 19 SUJIT SUJIT SAURABH SAURABH Date:
2025.12.08 16:40:40 +0530 every year of service preceding the date of termination of his service. On the other hand, management no.2 has pleaded that the workman had not worked for 240 days in a year.
12. The expression 'continuous service' is defined under Section 25B of the I.D. Act. It reads as follows:
25B. Definition of continuous service. --For the purposes of this Chapter, --
(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorised leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman;
(2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer--
(a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than--
(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;
(b) for a period of six months, if the workman, during a period of six calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than--
(i) ninety-five days, in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) one hundred and twenty days, in any other case.
Explanation. --For the purposes of clause (2), the number of days on which a workman has actually worked under an employer shall include the days on which--
(i) he has been laid-off under an agreement or as permitted by standing orders made under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (20 of 1946), or under this Act or under any other law applicable to the industrial establishment;
(ii) he has been on leave with full wages, earned in the previous years;
(iii) he has been absent due to temporary disablement caused by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment; and LIR No. 1759/2021 Digitally Anand Kumar Vs. M/s Rapid Action Security of India & Ors. Page 7 of 19 signed by SUJIT SUJIT SAURABH SAURABH Date:
2025.12.08 16:40:47 +0530
(iv) in the case of a female, she has been on maternity leave; so, however, that the total period of such maternity leave does not exceed twelve weeks.
12.1 From plain reading of section 25B, it is clear that a workman shall be deemed to be in 'continuous service' for a period of one year, if he, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than two hundred and forty days.
12.2 Initial burden of proof was upon the workman to prove that he had worked under the managements for not less than two hundred and forty days during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date of alleged termination of service.
12.2(I) By making positive statement in the statement of claim and in his examination-in-chief by wat of affidavit Ex.WW1/A, the workman had discharged the initial burden of proof. Now, the onus was upon the contesting management to prove the contrary.
12.2(II) It is admitted position of the management No.2 that it had appointed the workman and deputed him in the establishment of management no1. The management no.2 has sated that the workman was appointed on 16.03.2016 and he was unauthorizedly absent from his duty w.e.f. 16.09.2019.
12.2(III) The management no.2 has not brought on record attendance register of the workman to controvert the claim of the workman of 'continuous service'. Moreover, it has not mentioned LIR No. 1759/2021 Digitally Anand Kumar Vs. M/s Rapid Action Security of India & Ors. Page 8 of 19 signed by SUJIT SUJIT SAURABH SAURABH Date:
2025.12.08 16:40:54 +0530 anywhere the specific number of days the workman had actually worked in each calendar year. By mere denial, the management cannot discharge the onus of proof. There is no reason to disbelieve the claim of the workman.
12.2(IV) In such a situation, claim of 'continuous service' of the workman remains unrebutted. Force is found in the claim of the workman that he was in 'continuous service' of the management and he had worked for more than 240 days during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date of alleged termination of service.
13. In the light of above noted facts and observations, the issues shall be discussed and determined.
14. Issue No.1: Whether the workman abandoned the job by not joining the services of management no.2 at the transferred place and unauthorizedly stopped reporting duty w.e.f. 16.09.2019? OPM.
14.1 Where an employer claims that the workman himself left his employment voluntarily, the employer must issue a notice to the workmen directing him to resume duties and in absence of such notice, plea of voluntary abandonment of employment cannot be accepted.
In M/s. Premsons Trading (P) Ltd. Versus Shri. Dinesh Chandeshwar Rai C/O. Maharashtra Employees Union Writ Petition No. 4616 of 2019, Hon'ble High court of Bombay has held as under:
LIR No. 1759/2021 Digitally Anand Kumar Vs. M/s Rapid Action Security of India & Ors. Page 9 of 19signed by SUJIT SUJIT SAURABH SAURABH Date:
2025.12.08 16:41:02 +0530 "It is well settled law that to prove voluntary abandonment, the employer must issue a notice to the workmen directing him to resume duties and in absence of such notice, voluntary abandonment of employment cannot be accepted"
14.2 Intention of the workman to completely detach from the service is essential for abandonment. There must be total and complete giving up of duties so as to indicate an intention not to resume the same.
14.3 In G. T. Lad & Ors Vs. Chemicals & Fibres of India Ltd.
1979 SCC (1) 590, Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the issue of abandonment. It has been held as follows:
"In the Act, we do not find any definition of the expression 'abandonment of service'. In the absence of any clue as to the meaning of the said expression, we have to depend on meaning assigned to it in the dictionary of English language. In the unabridged edition of the Random House Dictionary, the word 'abandon' has been explained as meaning to leave completely and finally; for- sake utterly; to relinquish, renounce; to give up all concern in something'. According to the Dictionary of English Law by Earl Jowitt (1959 edition) 'abandonment' means' relinquishment of an interest or claim'. According to Black's Law Dictionary 'abandonment' when used in relation to an office means 'voluntary relinquishment. It must be total and under such circumstances as clearly to indicate an absolute relinquishment. The failure to perform the duties pertaining to the office must be with actual or imputed intention, on the part of the officer to abandon and relinquish the office. The intention may be inferred from the acts and conduct of the party, and is a question of fact. Temporary absence is not ordinarily sufficient to constitute an abandonment of office'.
From the connotations reproduced above it clearly follows that to constitute abandonment, there must be total or complete giving up of duties so as to indicate an intention not to resume the same. In Buckingham Co. v. Venkatiah & Ors. It was observed by this Court that under common law an inference that an employee has abandoned or relinquished service is not easily drawn unless from the length of absence and from other surrounding circumstances an inference to that effect can be legitimately drawn and it can be assumed that the employee intended to abandon service. Abandonment or relinquishment of service is always a question of intention, and normally, such an intention cannot be attributed to an employee without adequate evidence in that behalf. Thus, whether there has been a voluntary abandonment of service or not is a question of fact which has to be LIR No. 1759/2021 Digitally signed by Anand Kumar Vs. M/s Rapid Action Security of India & Ors. Page 10 of 19 SUJIT SUJIT SAURABH SAURABH Date:
2025.12.08 16:41:09 +0530 determined in the light of the surrounding circumstances of each case."
In Vijay S. Sathaye Versus Indian Airlines Ltd. & Ors. SLP (C) Nos. 24220-24221 of 2007, at para no.12, Hon'ble Supreme Court has quoted with approval the observation made in Buckingham and Carnatic Co. Ltd. v. Venkatiah & Anr., AIR 1964 SC 1272 which is as follows:
"Abandonment or relinquishment of service is always a question of intention, and normally, such an intention cannot be attributed to an employee without adequate evidence in that behalf."
In M/s Engineers India Ltd versus Presiding Officer Labour Court W.P.(C)No. 17858/2004 (Judgment dated 05.03.2018), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has noted as follows:
"Intention, or animus, to abandon, is the necessary sine qua non, for any case of "abandonment" to be said to exist. In the absence of intention, there is no abandonment. Any clause contemplating "deemed abandonment", even if it exists, cannot be so interpreted as to deem abandonment to have taken place, even where intention to abandon is not apparent."
14.4 Adverting to facts of the case, it is not defence of the management no.2 that it had issued any notice to the workman directing him to resume duties. In fact, plea of the management is that it had telephonically called the workman to resume duties at transferred place of posting. In the written statement at para no.2 of reply on merits, the management no.2 has stated as follows:
"The answering management has called to workman number of times in the month of Oct. and Nov. 2019 at his mobile phone number 9406506155 and requested him to join duty at the transfer place, but the workman did not come to join duty at transfer place."LIR No. 1759/2021 Digitally Anand Kumar Vs. M/s Rapid Action Security of India & Ors. Page 11 of 19
signed by SUJIT SUJIT SAURABH SAURABH Date:
2025.12.08 16:41:15 +0530 14.5 The managements no.2 has not placed on record the transfer letter by which the workman was allegedly transferred from the address of management no.1 to DAV Public School, Rajinder Nagar-2, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, U.P. Where a fact can be proved by documentary evidence, reliance cannot be placed on uncorroborated oral testimony of a witness. In absence of the alleged transfer letter, force can not be attached to the plea of the management no.2 that the workman did not join at the transferred place, especially when the workman has categorically denied the claim of abandonment.
14.6 Moreover, the terms and conditions of the employment of the workman having any stipulation of transfer from one establishment to another establishment remains 'not proved' as no appointment letter has been placed on record. In absence of any expressed or implied condition, the management cant not transfer the workman from one place to another place without his consent.
The workman cannot be treated as slave of the management. He has right to refuse where his transfer is effected without his consent and in contravention of the terms of the employment.
14.7 In the case in hand, onus of proof was upon the management no.2. However, the management has failed to discharge the onus by not proving the terms of employment and the alleged transfer letter. In such situation, it can not be said that the workman had any intention to completely detach himself from the service of the management. Accordingly, it is held that the management no.2 has failed to prove 'abandonment. The issue is decided against the management no.2.
LIR No. 1759/2021Digitally signed by Anand Kumar Vs. M/s Rapid Action Security of India & Ors. Page 12 of 19 SUJIT SUJIT SAURABH SAURABH Date:
2025.12.08 16:41:22 +0530
15. Issue No.2: Whether the services of the workman were terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the managements and if so, to what consequential relief is the workman entitled for? OPW.
15.1 The workman has admitted that he was appointed by the management no.2. In his cross-examination, the workman has stated: "I was appointed by the management no.2".
15.2 From the written statement of defense and testimony of MW1 Sh. Skand Singh, it is evident that the workman was under
control and supervision of the management no. 2.
15.3 Since the workman had been appointed by the management no.2 and he was under control and supervision of the management no. 2, the management no.1 could not have been in a position to terminate the services of the workman. Accordingly, he is not entitled to any relief from the management no1.
15.4 In his cross-examination, MW1 has admitted that the name of the workman has been struck off from the muster roll w.e.f 16.09.2019.
15.5 Striking off the name of the workman from the muster roll itself is sufficient to conclude that the services of the workman were dispensed with by the management no.2.
15.6 Since issue no.1 has been decided against the management no.2, dispensing with services of the workman by the management LIR No. 1759/2021 Digitally Anand Kumar Vs. M/s Rapid Action Security of India & Ors. Page 13 of 19 signed by SUJIT SUJIT SAURABH SAURABH Date:
2025.12.08 16:41:29 +0530 no.2 is 'deemed termination'. Accordingly, it is held that the services of the workman were terminated by the management no.2.
15.7 Termination of service of a workman by the employer is essentially a retrenchment unless it falls under any of the exceptions mentioned in subsection (oo) of section 2 of the I.D. Act.
15.7(I) Sub-section 2(oo) of the I.D. Act defines retrenchment. It reads as follows:
(oo) "retrenchment" means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not include--
(a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or
(b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or (bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or
(c) termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health 15.7(II) Hon'ble Supreme Court, in K.V. Anil Mithra & Anr.
Versus Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 9067 of 2014 (Judgment dated 27.10.2021), has held as follows:
"22. The term 'retrenchment' leaves no manner of doubt that the termination of the workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action are being termed as retrenchment with certain exceptions and it is not dependent upon the nature of employment and the procedure pursuant to which the workman has entered into service...."LIR No. 1759/2021
Digitally signed by Anand Kumar Vs. M/s Rapid Action Security of India & Ors. Page 14 of 19 SUJIT SUJIT SAURABH SAURABH Date:
2025.12.08 16:41:35 +0530 15.7(III) Section 25F of the I.D. Act lays down condition precedent for retrenchment. It reads as follows:
25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen. -- 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 for every completed year of continuous service 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 15.7(IV). From bare perusal of the provisions of section 25F, it is clear that no workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service (as defined under section 25B of the I.D. Act) for not less than one year can be terminated without following conditions provided therein. Nature of employment or manner of employment of the workman is not material. Even services of a daily wager cannot be terminated without due compliance of clause (a) and (b) of Section 25F of the I.D. Act.
In K.V. Anil Mithra (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has noted as follows:
"23. The scheme of the Act 1947 contemplates that the workman employed even as a daily wager or in any capacity, if has worked for more than 240 days in the preceding 12 months from the alleged date of termination and if the employer wants to terminate the services of such a workman, his services could be terminated after due compliance of the twin clauses (a) and (b) of Section 25F of the Act 1947 and to its non-observance held the termination to be void ab initio bad and so far as the consequential effect of non-observance of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act 1947, may lead to grant of relief of reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service in favour of retrenched workman, the same would not mean that the relief would be Digitally LIR No. 1759/2021 signed by SUJIT Anand Kumar Vs. M/s Rapid Action Security of India & Ors. Page 15 of 19 SUJIT SAURABH SAURABH Date:
2025.12.08 16:41:42 +0530 granted automatically but the workman is entitled for appropriate relief for non-observance of the mandatory requirement of Section 25F of the Act, 1947 in the facts and circumstances of each case.
24. The salient fact which has to be considered is whether the employee who has been retrenched is a workman under Section 2(s) and is employed in an industry defined under Section 2(j) and who has been in continuous service for more than one year can be retrenched provided the employer complies with the twin conditions provided under clauses (a) and (b) of Section 25F of the Act 1947 before the retrenchment is given effect to. The nature of employment and the manner in which the workman has been employed is not significant for consideration while invoking the mandatory compliance of Section 25F of the Act 1947".
(Emphasis supplied) 15.8 Adverting to facts of the case, there is nothing on record to show that the management no.2 had issued any notice of retrenchment or had paid wage for the notice period or had paid retrenchment compensation to the workman before terminating his services. Accordingly, termination of the workman is held illegal and unjustified, same being in violation of the mandates of section 25F of the I.D. Act. Accordingly, the issue no.2 is decided.
16. Issue No.3: Relief 16.1 The workman has claimed that he was initially employed in the establishment of M/s DAV Public school, Shalimar Garden, Sahibabad, as security guard, on 15.03.2015. However, he has not brought on record any documentary evidence to prove his employment w.e.f. 15.03.2015. In fact, the workman has made improvements in his statement of claim filed before the court regarding date of first employment. In his statement of claim Ex.WW1/2, filed before the Additional Labour commissioner, the workman has stated that he was appointed in the school of the management through M/s Rapid Action Security of India i.e. management no.2 on 16.03.2016 and his last drawn salary was Rs.14,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Thousand only). The alleged date LIR No. 1759/2021 Digitally signed by Anand Kumar Vs. M/s Rapid Action Security of India & Ors. Page 16 of 19 SUJIT SUJIT SAURABH SAURABH Date:
2025.12.08 16:41:49 +0530 of first employment i.e. 15.03.2015 does not find mention in Ex.WW1/2.
In view of the above noted facts, the alleged date of first employment of the workman i.e. 15.03.2015 is not proved. However, in view of the admitted position of the management no.2, 16.03.2016 is accepted as the date of appointment of the workman.
16.2 The workman has stated that he is unemployed since the date of termination of his service. He has prayed for reinstatement with full back wages and consequential benefits.
16.3 From the evidences led by the parties and materials on record, it is evident that the workman had worked with the managements for three and half years approximately.
16.4 So far as claim of back wages is concerned, a workman cannot claim back wages as a matter of right. It is necessary for the workman 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.
In Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur Versus Shri Phool Chand (Dead) Through L.Rs. Civil Appeal No.1756 of 2010 (Judgment dated 20.09.2018), Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:
11. 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 LIR No. 1759/2021 Digitally signed by Anand Kumar Vs. M/s Rapid Action Security of India & Ors. Page 17 of 19 SUJIT SUJIT SAURABH SAURABH Date:
2025.12.08 16:41:56 +0530 because the Court has set aside his dismissal order in his favour and directed his reinstatement in service.
12. 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.
16.5 In this case, the workman has not brought on record any positive evidence to prove his unemployment. Mere self-serving affidavit of the workman is wholly insufficient to discharge the burden. (Reliance placed on Range Forest Officer Versus S.T. Hadimani AIR 2002 Supreme Court 1147) 16.6 In considered view of this court, it would be just and reasonable to award a lumpsum monetary compensation of Rs.
70,000/- (Rupees seventy thousand only) to the workman towards full and final satisfaction of the dispute. Accordingly, compensation of Rs. 70,000/- (Rupees seventy thousand only) is awarded to the workman. The compensation amount includes the litigation expenditure. The compensation amount shall be paid within six weeks from the date when the award becomes enforceable, failing which the same shall carry an interest @ 8% per annum.
17. In terms of the above findings, the reference is answered.
18. The statement of claim is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, stands disposed of.
LIR No. 1759/2021 Digitally signed by Anand Kumar Vs. M/s Rapid Action Security of India & Ors. Page 18 of 19 SUJIT SUJIT SAURABH SAURABH Date: 2025.12.08 16:42:03 +0530
19. A copy of the Award be sent to the Competent Authority/ Govt. of NCT of Delhi for information and necessary action, if any, as per rules.
Pronounced in open Court today Digitally signed
i.e. 08.12.2025 SUJIT
by SUJIT
SAURABH
SAURABH Date:
2025.12.08
16:42:09 +0530
(SUJIT SAURABH)
Presiding Officer, Labour Court-IX Rouse Avenue Court Complex, Delhi 08.12.2025 LIR No. 1759/2021 Anand Kumar Vs. M/s Rapid Action Security of India & Ors. Page 19 of 19