Delhi District Court
Imamuddin Ansari vs M/S Sonu Exim on 1 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. ARCHANA BHALLA,
DISTRICT JUDGE/ POLC-V,
ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX,
NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLCT13-005829-2017
LIR No : 1393/2017
In the matter of :
Sh. Imammuddin Ansari,
S/o Sh. Usman Miyan,
R/o H.No. A-383,Transit Camp, Govindpuri, Kalkaji,
New Delhi-110020.
Through:
All India General Mazdoor Trade Union,
170, Bal Mukund Khand, Giri Nagar,
Kalkaji, New Delhi.
Sh. Pramod Kumar Rajpoot, Secretary,
Mobile No.9899743838.
.....Workman.
Versus
M/s Sonu Exim Pvt. Ltd.
E-47/11, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II,
New Delhi-110020.
......Management.
Date of Institution : 09.05.2017
Date of decision : 01.11.2025
JUDGMENT
PART A REFERENCE The Deputy Labour Commissioner, Govt of NCT, Delhi while exercising his power U/s 10 (1) (c) and 12 (5) of the LIR No. 1393/2017 Page No. 1 of 17 Imamuddin Ansari Vs. M/s. Sonu Exim Pvt. Ltd. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (Hereinafter referred to as the Act), R/w notification No. F.24 (-361-)/Lab./SD/2017/9230, dated 05.05.2017 had sent the following reference to this court for adjudication :-
"Whether the services of workman Sh. Imamuddin Ansari S/o Sh. Usman Miyan, aged 28 years, have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management; and if so, to what relief is he entitled to and what directions are necessary in this respect?"
PART-B REFERENCE/CLAIM
1. As per the claimant, he was working with the management as a tailor since 12.02.2010 and his last drawn wages were Rs. 11,600/- per month. It is further claimed that the service record of the claimant was neat and clean and he had never given any chance of complaint to the management during his employment. It is further claimed that he was not provided with various legal facilities such as leave book, attendance card, salary slip, bonus according to the balance sheet of the management and yearly leaves. It is further claimed that the claimant demanded the aforesaid legal facilities from the management orally, pursuant to which the management held a grudge against him and started paying the salary of the workman on illegal plain register and vouchers and even threatened him to terminate his services.
2. It is further claimed that the management terminated his LIR No. 1393/2017 Page No. 2 of 17 Imamuddin Ansari Vs. M/s. Sonu Exim Pvt. Ltd. services on 21.04.2016 without giving any prior notice. It is further claimed that the claimant had sent a demand letter to the management through Union through registered AD/ Speed Post on 24.05.2016 demanding his back wages and bonus with reinstatement but the management neither replied to nor acted upon the same. It is further claimed that the claimant made a written complaint through his Union on 25.05.2016 to the Regional Assistant Labor Commissioner, Delhi State Government, District South Delhi, Pushpa Bhawan, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi, which was forwarded to the Labour Inspector but the management flatly refused to pay the outstanding salary of the claimant nor reinstated him on the job. It is stated that the Labour Inspector gave several notices to the management and called for the records of the claimant in the Labour Office but the management did not present the records related to the claimant before the Labour Inspector.
3. Further, the claimant raised the issued before Conciliation officer on 25.05.2016 and there also the management did not participate in the conciliation proceedings and no back wages and other legal dues were paid to the claimant. It is further claimed that despite making efforts, he is unemployed since the termination of his services and has become financially dependent on his relatives.
4. It is prayed by the claimant that his termination from services by the management be declared as illegal and he has also prayed for reinstatement of services along with full back LIR No. 1393/2017 Page No. 3 of 17 Imamuddin Ansari Vs. M/s. Sonu Exim Pvt. Ltd. wages.
PART-C MANAGEMENT'S STAND/REPLY
5. It is submitted by the management in their written statement that the workman had no cause of action as the workman himself started absenting voluntarily from his services from 21.04.2016 after taking his salary for the month of April, 2016 worked by him, stating that he had to go to his village for a few days and will resume his work after coming back and the management had never terminated the services of the workman. It is submitted that the factory operating at Okhla had stopped functioning from 16.10.2016 and the staff that working there continued working in the company situated at Noida. It is further submitted that the management had not engaged anyone else to replace the workman and the management was willing to reinstate him without payment of back wages.
6. It is further submitted that the workman was appointed by the management on 02.06.2014 on the post of Tailor. It is further submitted that the workman has not produced any document to show his appointment with the management on 12.02.2010 or that he was terminated on 21.04.2016. It is further denied that any amount is liable to be paid by the management to the workman and all the payment had been made to the workman by the management for the period that the workman had worked with the management.
LIR No. 1393/2017 Page No. 4 of 17Imamuddin Ansari Vs. M/s. Sonu Exim Pvt. Ltd.
7. It is further submitted that the management had not received any demand letter dated 24.05.2016. It is further submitted that the AR for the management had approached the concerned Labour Office and produced the requisite documents and it is specifically denied that the representative of the Management declined to reinstate the workman. It is further submitted that the workman was gainfully employed and it is prayed that the Court may dismiss the claim of the claimant.
PART-D ISSUES
8. From the pleading of the parties, the Court, vide its order dated 28.02.2019 had framed the following issues for trial, reading as under : -
1) Whether the workman absented from duties on his own and if so, its effect? OPM.
2) Whether the services of the workman were terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what relief is he entitled? OPW .
3) Relief PART-E WORKMAN'S EVIDENCE
9. The claimant tendered his evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex. WW-1/A wherein he reiterated the averments made by him in his statement of claim and relied upon the following LIR No. 1393/2017 Page No. 5 of 17 Imamuddin Ansari Vs. M/s. Sonu Exim Pvt. Ltd. documents:-
i) Copy of Demand Letter dated 24.05.2016 sent by the workman to the management vide Ex. WW1/1.
ii) Original postal receipt vide Ex. WW1/2.
iii) Original postal receipt vide Ex. WW1/3.
iv) Original receipt of acknowledgment Card vide Ex.WW-1/4.
v) Written complaint dated 25.05.2016 vide Ex. WW1/5.
vi)Statement of claim filed before Assistant Labour Commissioner, New Delhi vide Ex. WW-1/6.
10. During his cross-examination, the claimant denied that he was appointed by the management on 02.06.2014 on the post of Tailor. He deposed that he had not received any formal training for tailoring from any recognized institution. He further deposed that he had not filed any document to show that he was appointed on 12.02.2010. He denied that he had not placed on record any document to show his appointment in 12.02.2010 as he was not appointed by the management 12.02.2010. He deposed that he had not given any request for appointment dated 02.06.2014 vide Ex. WW-1/M1 and the same did not bear his signatures at point A. He further deposed that he had not given Bio-Data Form vide Ex. WW-1/M2 and the same did not bear his signatures at point A. He further deposed that he was not given appointment letter dated 02.06.2014 vide Ex. WW-1/M3 and the same did not bear his signatures at point A. He deposed that document Form-I vide Ex. WW-1/M4 did not bear his signature at point A. He deposed that document Form-2 vide Ex. WW-1/M5 did not LIR No. 1393/2017 Page No. 6 of 17 Imamuddin Ansari Vs. M/s. Sonu Exim Pvt. Ltd. bear his signature at point A & B. He deposed that he was not given the benefit of EPF. He denied that he was given all the legal benefits including ESIC, EPF, Gratuity, etc., by the management during his employment. He deposed that he was not given ESIC Card vide Ex. WW-1/M6 and the same did not bear his signatures at point A. He deposed that he was not given Form-16 vide Ex. WW-1/M7 and the same did not bear his signatures at point A. He deposed that he was not given Form-F vide Ex. WW-1/M8 and the same did not bear his signatures at point A & B.
11. He deposed that his attendance was marked by way of punching card. He denied that he had received salary till the month of April, 2016. He deposed that he had not signed on salary register at the time of receiving his salary. He deposed that he was 8th class passed. He admitted that the management used to provide him the minimum wages. He denied that the management used to provide him the weekly and national holidays. He denied that the management used to pay him for overtime. He deposed that he had not raised any complaint against the management during his employment in writing before any authority. He denied that the management had never adopted any anti-labour practices against him. He denied that the management had not terminated his employment on 21.04.2016 or on any other date. He denied that he voluntarily abandoned his job with the management from 21.04.2016. He denied that the management had never exploited him. He deposed that he had never visited the management alongwith LIR No. 1393/2017 Page No. 7 of 17 Imamuddin Ansari Vs. M/s. Sonu Exim Pvt. Ltd. the labour inspector. He denied that the management had not kept anyone else in his place. He denied that he had been working in some concern since 21.04.2016 at excessive salary and as such he had abandoned his job with the management voluntarily.
12. He deposed that his family comprised of himself and his wife and his monthly expenditure was about Rs. 7-8,000/- per month which was borne by his parents who live in his village and are engaged in farming. He deposed that he did not know when he became the member of Labour Union. He denied that he had filed the case at the instance of Labour Union or he wanted to extort money from the management for his unlawful gain. He denied that his claim was false. He further denied that he was not entitled to any of his claims because he had voluntarily abandoned his job with the management.
13. Thereafter, workman's evidence was closed.
PART-F MANAGEMENT'S EVIDENCE
14. Management examined MW-1 Sh. Satender Kumar, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. MW-1/A and relied upon the following documents:
i) Copy of letter of authorization vide Ex.MW1/1.
ii) Copy of Request Letter For Appointment vide Ex. WW-1/M1.
iii) Copy of Bio Data Form vide Ex. WW-1/M2.LIR No. 1393/2017 Page No. 8 of 17
Imamuddin Ansari Vs. M/s. Sonu Exim Pvt. Ltd.
iv) Copy of appointment letter dated 02.06.2014 vide Ex. WW-1/M3.
v) Copy of Form-1 of ESIC vide Ex. WW-1/M4.
vi) Copy of Form-2-EPF & EPS dated 02.06.2014 vide Ex. WW-1/M5.
vii) Copy of ESIC temporary Identity Certificate vide Ex. WW-1/M6.
vii) Copy of Form-16 of Factories Act, dated 02.06.2014 vide Ex. WW-1/M7.
viii) Copy of Form-F Payment of Gratuity dated 02.06.2014 vide Ex. WW-1/M8.
ix) Copy of Attendance Register for the month of April, 2016 vide Ex. MW-1/2.
x) Copy of certificate U/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act vide Ex. MW-1/3.
xi) The salary chart for April, 2016 vide vide Ex. MW-1/4.
15. During his cross examination, MW-1 admitted that Ex. WW-1/1 depicted the correct address of the workman. He voluntarily deposed that no demand notice was received by the management, so the question of replying to the same did not arise. He deposed that the correspondence address of the management was B-5/3, Okhla Phase-II, New Delhi. He admitted that the workman was working at E-47/11, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi. He deposed that the appointment letter vide Ex. WW-1/M3 issued to the workman was of E-47/11, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi. He denied that the workman was not given appointment letter LIR No. 1393/2017 Page No. 9 of 17 Imamuddin Ansari Vs. M/s. Sonu Exim Pvt. Ltd. or that the same did not bear the signatures of the workman. He admitted that no warning letter was issued to the workman from 2010 to 2016. He admitted that no written letter was sent by the management to the workman for rejoining his duties after 21.04.2016. He voluntarily deposed that since the workman had voluntarily abandoned his job, so there was no requirement of sending a letter to him for rejoining his duties, however, he was contacted telephonically. He denied that he was deposing falsely in that regard.
16. He admitted that no charge-sheet was issued to the workman by the management and that no domestic inquiry was conducted against the workman. He admitted that he had gone to the labour office, however, no written reply was filed. He deposed that he had informed the officer regarding the voluntarily abandonment by the workman. He denied that he was deposing falsely on that point. He admitted that no letter was written to the workman regarding shifting of the office to Noida in October, 2016 and the management was ready to reinstate the workman. He denied that the management had not provided appointment letter, ESIC and EPF benefits to the workman. He denied that the workman had been wrongfully terminated by the management or that legal benefits were not provided to the workman. He voluntarily deposed that the management is a compliant institution and as such, cannot function without fulfilling the compliance criteria. He admitted that the earned wages of April, 2016 had been paid by the management to the workman. He denied that Ex. MW-1/4 did LIR No. 1393/2017 Page No. 10 of 17 Imamuddin Ansari Vs. M/s. Sonu Exim Pvt. Ltd. not bear the signature of the workman at point A.
17. He deposed that the name of the workman was removed from the muster roll after 30.04.2016 and no letter was issued to the workman regarding the same. He deposed that no letter was sent to the workman regarding absenteeism from the work dated 14.04.2016. He denied that no bonus was given to the workman in the year 2014, 2015 and 2016. He denied that the signatures of the workman on the bonus register vide Ex. MW-1/D were forged and fabricated or that the workman had never signed upon the same. He denied that the signatures of the workman on Ex.WW-1/M2 to Ex.WW-1/M8 were forged and fabricated. He admitted that he had not placed any document to show that Sh. Imammuddin was currently under gainful employment. He denied that he was deposing falsely.
18. Thereafter, management's evidence was closed.
PART G DECISIONS AND REASONS
19. Arguments were heard on behalf of both the parties. After considering the claim, reply, documents and the evidence led on record, and also case laws filed by the parties, the issue wise decision of the court is as under :-
20. Issue No. 1.Whether the workman absented from duties on his own and if so, its effect? OPM.
LIR No. 1393/2017 Page No. 11 of 17Imamuddin Ansari Vs. M/s. Sonu Exim Pvt. Ltd. Unauthorised absence from work is when an employee fails to turn up for work without providing a valid reason, or without notifying their employer of their absence. The onus to prove this issue was upon the management. The management has taken the stand that they never terminated the services of the workman and that the workman stopped reporting for work from 21.04.2016. The workman has averred that the management terminated his services after he had orally demanded the management to provide him with his legal facilities such as leave book, salary slip, attendance card, yearly and weekly off, bonus, double overtime, travel allowance, HRA, etc., on 21.04.2016., without giving him any notice or charge-sheet.
21. To prove that it was the workman who was absenting himself from his duties on his own, the management has produced the attendance for the month of April 2016 vide Ex. MW-1/2 alongwith the supporting certificate under Section 65B, Indian Evidence Act vide Ex. MW-1/3. As per the attendance register of the workman, the workman had reported for his duty till 20.04.2016 and thereafter, he has been marked as absent in the attendance register. The attendance register is marked electronically and not manually, so as to remove any doubt as to its manipulation. The workman himself has admitted in his cross-examination that his attendance used to be marked through punching card and he has not disputed the document Ex. MW-1/2 even during his own cross- examination.
LIR No. 1393/2017 Page No. 12 of 17Imamuddin Ansari Vs. M/s. Sonu Exim Pvt. Ltd.
22. The punching card was in the possession of the workman himself and his attendance would be marked electronically as and when he used the punching card. He has never stated in his evidence if at any point of time, the management had taken back the possession of the punching card from the workman. The management has taken the stand that the workman had started absenting from his job since 21.04.2016 after taking his salary for the month of April 2016 on the pretext of going to his village for a few days and that he would resume his work after coming back. In support of this, the management has also relied upon the salary chart for the month of April 2016 vide Ex. MW-1/4. As per the same, the workman had worked only for 20 days in the month of April 2016 and had received a proportionate salary for the period worked by him in April 2016. Though the workman has denied his signatures on Ex. MW-1/4, the workman has proceeded to deny his signatures on all the documents produced by the management, without leading any evidence to controvert any of them. The workman has not led any evidence to contradict the evidence led by the management to prove the absenteeism on part of the workman. He has not examined any co-worker in support of his case, to contradict the stand of the management. He has never even filed any application seeking directions to the management to produce their attendance register for the period subsequent to the month of April 2016. Also, the workman admitted in his cross-examination that he never visited the management alongwith the labour inspector LIR No. 1393/2017 Page No. 13 of 17 Imamuddin Ansari Vs. M/s. Sonu Exim Pvt. Ltd. after his wrongful termination. Thus, it appears that he had never visited the premises of the management after 21.04.2016. Hence, from the evidence led by the management, it is clear that the workman had been appearing for his duties under the management till 20.04.2016. and thereafter, he did not appear. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the management and against the workman.
23. Issue No. 2 - Whether the service of the workman has been terminated illegally and unjustifiably by the management? OPW It has already been proved by the management by leading cogent evidence that the workman had stopped appearing after 21.04.2016 and that proceeded on unauthorised/ unsanctioned leave post 21.04.2016 after receiving his salary for the days he had worked in the month of April 2016. The AR for the management has admitted in his cross-examination that no written letter was issued to the workman by the management for rejoining his duties after 21.04.2016. The AR for the management deposed that since the workman has voluntarily abandoned his job, there was no requirement of sending a letter to him for rejoining his duties, though he was contacted via telephonic calls. He admitted that no charge-sheet was issued to the workman and no domestic enquiry was conducted by the management against the workman.
24. The management has already proved that they had not terminated the services of the workman and the workman LIR No. 1393/2017 Page No. 14 of 17 Imamuddin Ansari Vs. M/s. Sonu Exim Pvt. Ltd. himself stopped appearing for work after taking his salary for the period worked by him in the month of April 2016. From the muster roll produced by the management, during the cross- examination of MW-1 at the behest of the workman, it appeared that the name of the workman was removed from the muster roll after 30.04.2016. Thus, it stands proved that the management had not removed him from service in the month of April 2016 and his name was removed from the muster roll only after April 2016.
25. It was held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Diamond Toys Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Toofani Ram & Anr, (2007) SCC OnLine Del 1364 in para no. 6 that:-
" It is commonly known that a person, who is working in the industry keeps on trying for better jobs and better opportunities. The moment he gets better job, he is free to leave his previous employer. The industrial law does not require him to pay any compensation to the employer while leaving his job, as the industrial laws require an employer to pay retrenchment compensation when employer wants to terminate the workman. Thus, there are no fetters on the workman on leaving the job while there are fetters on the employer in terminating the service of an employee. If a workman leaves his job all of a sudden and stops attending the workplace of the employer, Industrial Dispute Act does not put any obligation on the employer to call back the workman and request him to come and join his duties. Such a request can be made by the employer only when employer considers that a useful workman should not leave the job or where a workman is governed by certain rules and regulations under State employment and the employer is supposed to hold an enquiry under the service rule before termination of service of an employee. Where the workman is LIR No. 1393/2017 Page No. 15 of 17 Imamuddin Ansari Vs. M/s. Sonu Exim Pvt. Ltd.
free to leave and join another employer without even a notice and without obtaining a no objection from his employer, the employer cannot be compelled to call such a workman for joining the duties or to conduct an enquiry into the absence of the workman and then terminate his services. Leaving the services of an employer by the workman is a valid mode of his abandonment and there is no illegality attached to a workman leaving the services of his previous employer and joining another employer. If the employer does not consider the abandonment of service or leaving the service by a workman as a misconduct, the law cannot force the employer to consider such abandonment as a misconduct and hold an enquiry. Misconduct of an employee is the one which an employer considers as the misconduct. An enquiry is required to be held only where an employer intends to impose punishment on the employee for an alleged misconduct. if an employer does not intend to impose any punishment on the employee and considers that if the employee has left his service, let it be so, the law cannot compel the employer to hold an enquiry and punish an employee for the misconduct.
26. Accordingly, since issue no. 1 has already been decided against the workman and it has been proved on preponderance of probability that the workman had absented himself from duties on his own w.e.f., 21.04.2016 and as per the settled law on the issue of inquiry into abandonment of service by the workman as mentioned above, it is held that it is not necessary for the employer to hold an enquiry into the abandonment of service by the workman and it was for the workman to prove that his service were terminated for some reasons by the employer or without any reason by the employer. However, it already stands proved that the workman had not reported for duty after 21.04.2016 and had proceeded on unauthorised LIR No. 1393/2017 Page No. 16 of 17 Imamuddin Ansari Vs. M/s. Sonu Exim Pvt. Ltd. absence before his name was taken off the muster roll by the management. Hence, it is quite apparent that the workman has taken a false stand before the Court and had not approached the Court with clean hands. Under these circumstances, issue no. 2 is decided against the workman and in favour of the management and it is held that the service of the workman was not terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management.
27. Issue No. 3 - Relief.
28. Consequent to the decision on Issues No.1 & 2, it is held that the workman/claimant is not entitled to any relief under the Act.
29. With these observations the statement of claim of the workman filed under the provisions of the Act is disposed off.
30. Reference is answered and disposed off accordingly.
31. Let copy of the award be sent to the appropriate Govt for its publication as per rules.
Digitally signed by ARCHANA ARCHANA BHALLA Announced in the open Court BHALLA Date: 2025.11.01 16:26:04 on 01.11.2025. +0530 (ARCHANA BHALLA) DISTRICT JUDGE/ POLC-V, ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX NEW DELHI. LIR No. 1393/2017 Page No. 17 of 17
Imamuddin Ansari Vs. M/s. Sonu Exim Pvt. Ltd.