Delhi District Court
Akashy Kumar Singh vs Ms G-4S, Secure Solution I Pvt. Ltd on 30 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF
PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT-01:
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT: NEW DELHI
Presided Over by: Ms. Pooja Aggarwal, DHJS
LC No. 127/2016 (Old DID No. 84/2014)
CNR No. DLCT13-000259-2014
In the matter of:
Sh. Akshay Kumar Singh
S/o Late Sh. Narayan Singh,
A-445, Durga Gali, Mandawali, Delhi-110092.
C/o Sh. A. Ganguly,
Chamber No. D-721,
Karkardooma Courts Complex, Delhi.
.....Workman
Details of one immediate family member of workman: Not
Provided
Details of the Authorized Representative of the workman:
Name: Mr. A. Ganguly
Mobile No.: 99871220043
VERSUS
M/s G4S Secure Solution (I) Pvt. Ltd.
16, Community Centre, C-Block,
Janakpuri, New Delhi - 110058.
.....Management
Details of Authorized Representative of the management:
Name: Mr. Gulshan Chawla
Mobile No. 9899737099
E mail ID of the management: Not provided.
Date of Filing of Claim : 24.02.2014
Date of Award : 30.05.2025
LC No. 127/2016 (Old DID No. 84/2014) POOJA
AGGARWAL
Akshay Kumar Singh vs. M/s G4S Secure Solution (I) Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 1 of 17
Digitally signed by
POOJA AGGARWAL
Date: 2025.05.30
15:38:41 +0530
AWARD
1. The present claim has been filed by the workman under
Section 2A (2) and (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as
amended in 2010, as a Direct Industrial Dispute asserting
illegal termination of his services by management and
seeking reinstatement with full back wages, continuity of
service and all consequential benefits.
Facts as per the statement of claim
2. Briefly stated, it has been asserted by the workman that he was working with management since 01.12.1997 with his last drawn wages being ₹9,386/- per month without any complaints against him and he was promoted from the post of Head Guard to Supervisor on 20.01.2009.
3. It has further been asserted that the Regional Manager Mr. Xabir Joseph asked the workman to sign some blank papers and work as a Head Guard if he wanted to continue with the management and told him that his salary would be deducted from that day, and when the workman protested and asked for the written order, Mr. Joseph (R.M.) got annoyed, threatened him and terminated his services w.e.f. 05.09.2013 without any written order and without paying or offering any notice pay, service compensation, bonus, gratuity and leave encashment etc. in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which is unfair labour practice and is against the principles of natural justice.
4. It has further been asserted that the workman sent a demand LC No. 127/2016 (Old DID No. 84/2014) Digitally Akshay Kumar Singh vs. M/s G4S Secure Solution (I) Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 2 of 17 signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.05.30 15:38:57 +0530 notice/ legal notice though Mr. A. Ganguly by Speed Post on 09.10.2013 but the management did not reply the same, despite receiving it.
5. It has also been asserted that the workman had filed a statement of claim before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and the conciliation officer took up the matter in conciliation 237/CO-II/13/WD/LAB/1242 which was initiated on 01.11.2013 and the conciliation proceedings were concluded on 12.02.2014. Hence the present claim.
Facts as per the written statement
6. In its written statement, the management has raised various preliminary objections including as to the present claim not being maintainable as it had been raised without following the procedure prescribed under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It has been further asserted that the workman was working with management as a Supervisor, but he was demoted to Head Guard on account of his misconduct and as he was performing job of supervisory and administrative nature, he was not a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
7. It has also been asserted that the workman had lastly reported for duty on 03.09.2013, after which he stopped the office/ his duties on his own volition without intimation to management thereby abandoning his job. It has been further asserted that management never terminated the services of the workman and the present dispute was not an industrial dispute as POOJA LC No. 127/2016 (Old DID No. 84/2014) AGGARWAL Akshay Kumar Singh vs. M/s G4S Secure Solution (I) Pvt. Ltd. Digitally signed by Page No. 3 of 17 POOJA AGGARWAL Date: 2025.05.30 15:39:06 +0530 defined under Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It has also been asserted that the workman had been employed vide Employment Contract dated 04.12.1997, which contained a clause for striking off his name from the rolls of the management, inter alia, in case of absence from duty without intimation for a continuous period of eight days.
8. On merits, management has stated the factum of conciliation officer having taken up the matter in conciliation 237/CO- II/13/WD/LAB/1242 initiated on 01.11.2013 and as to the conciliation proceedings having concluded on 12.02.2014, to be a matter of record, but it has asserted that no conciliation proceedings were initiated by the workman against M/s G4S Security Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. nor any reference was made by the appropriate government. The last drawn wages of the workman have been admitted to be ₹9,386/- per month and it has also been admitted that he was promoted to Supervisor from the post of Head Guard on 20.04.2009. It has been further asserted that vide warning letters dated 16.12.1999 and 17.02.2000, the workman was given warning when he was found sleeping on duty, which amounted to indiscipline and misconduct and it has been reiterated that it was on account of his misconduct, that the workman was demoted as a Head Guard getting salary for the post of Head Guard till 05.09.2013. All the other averments as made in the statement of claim have been denied on merits.
Issues
9. No rejoinder was filed by the workman and the following LC No. 127/2016 (Old DID No. 84/2014) POOJA Akshay Kumar Singh vs. M/s G4S Secure Solution (I) Pvt. Ltd. AGGARWAL Page No. 4 of 17 Digitally signed by POOJA AGGARWAL Date: 2025.05.30 15:39:16 +0530 issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 02.11.2015:
(i) Whether the claimant is not a workman as defined u/s 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act since he was working as supervisory capacity alleged by the management? OPM
(ii) Whether the workman has filed the present claim without following the procedure as prescribed U/s 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act? OPM
(iii) Whether the services of the workman were terminated illegally and unjustifiably by the management, if so, its effect? OPW
(iv) Whether the workman is entitled to the relief claimed in the statement of claim? OPW
(v) Relief.
Workman Evidence
10. The workman tendered his evidence by way of affidavit i.e. Ex.WW-1/A and relied upon the following documents i.e. S.No Description of Document Exhibit/Mark
1. Copy of statement of Claim Ex.WW1/1 dated 22.10.2013
2. Copy of legal demand notice Ex.WW1/2 dated 09.10.2013 with postal receipt
3. Copy of contract for Ex.WW1/3 employment for guards/ appointment letter
4. Copies of ID cards issued by Ex.WW1/4 management (colly.)
5. Copy of ESIC receipt Ex.WW1/5
11. Initially, the right of the management to cross-examine the workman was closed. However, vide order dated 24.11.2017 passed by the Ld. Predecessor upon an application of the management, the management was permitted to cross- LC No. 127/2016 (Old DID No. 84/2014) POOJA Akshay Kumar Singh vs. M/s G4S Secure Solution (I) Pvt. Ltd. AGGARWAL Page No. 5 of 17 Digitally signed by POOJA AGGARWAL Date: 2025.05.30 15:39:24 +0530 examine the workman whereafter the workman was duly cross-examined on behalf of the management.
Management Evidence
12. MW1 Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Taku tendered his evidence by way of affidavit i.e. Ex.MW1/A and also relied upon the following documents i.e. S.No. Description of Document Exhibit/Mark
1. Copy of Power of Attorney Ex. MW1/1 issued on 30.03.2016
2. Copy of warning letter dated Mark-A 16.12.1999
3. Copy of warning letter dated Mark-B 17.02.2000
13. He was duly cross-examined on behalf of the workman, wherein, inter-alia, he pointed out to the contract of employment of guards i.e. Ex. WW1/3 as being the appointment letter. During his cross-examination, he admitted the address of the management at point A on the demand notice i.e. Ex. WW1/2 as well as the claim Ex. WW1/1. The postal receipt i.e. Ex. MW1/W1 was also put to him.
14. Final arguments were then advanced by the Ld Authorized Representatives of the workman as well as the management, which have been carefully considered along with the evidence on record and after careful consideration of the same, the issue wise findings are as under:
LC No. 127/2016 (Old DID No. 84/2014) POOJA Akshay Kumar Singh vs. M/s G4S Secure Solution (I) Pvt. Ltd. AGGARWAL Page No. 6 of 17 Digitally signed by POOJA AGGARWAL Date: 2025.05.30 15:39:33 +0530 Issue no. (i): Whether the claimant is not a workman as defined u/s 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act since he was working as supervisory capacity alleged by the management? OPM
15. The onus to prove this issue was on the management. At the very outset, it is noted as per the statement of claim, the workman had been promoted as a supervisor on 20.01.2009, with his last drawn salary being ₹9,386/- per month and he was getting the salary of the post of supervisor till 05.09.2013 i.e. the date of the termination of his services.
16. On the other hand, in its written statement, management has averred that the workman had been promoted to the post of supervisor on 20.04.2009, and was working with the management as supervisor, they have also asserted that on account of misconduct, he had been demoted as a head guard, getting salary for the post of head guard till 05.09.2013. However, the management has also admitted the last drawn wages of the workman to be ₹9,386 per month as being a matter of record.
17. It is duly noted that the factum of the workman discharging functions as a supervisor/ nature of his duties being supervisory in nature is not in dispute. Rather, during his cross-examination, the workman testified that as a supervisor, he would get the work done from guards and head guards and he would check the visitors as well as their luggage with the other guards/head guards. He also admitted that the post of the supervisor was superior to the guard/head guard in terms of responsibility, and that the guard/head LC No. 127/2016 (Old DID No. 84/2014) Akshay Kumar Singh vs. M/s G4S Secure Solution (I) Pvt. Ltd. POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 7 of 17 Digitally signed by POOJA AGGARWAL Date: 2025.05.30 15:39:42 +0530 guard had to obey the instructions of the supervisor.
18. However, it is also noted that by virtue of Section 2 (s)(iv) of the Industrial Disputes Act, it is only the people who are employed in supervisory capacity and who draw wages exceeding ₹10,000 per month or who exercise functions, mainly of managerial nature, either by the nature of duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in them, are excluded from the purview of workman.
19. In the present case, it is not the stand of the management that the workman was discharging any managerial functions, nor is it their case that the salary of the workman was more than ₹10,000 per month. That being so, even though the workman had been working in supervisory capacity, but as his monthly salary was less than ₹10,000/- per month and no managerial functions have been attributed to him nor proved in the court, he does not become excluded from the purview of section 2
(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is thus held that the management has failed to discharge the onus cast upon them and this issue is accordingly decided against the management.
Issue no. (ii): Whether the workman has filed the present claim without following the procedure as prescribed U/s 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act? OPM
20. The onus to prove this issue was also on the management. At the very outset, it is noted that as per the statement of claim the workman had filed the present claim as per the LC No. 127/2016 (Old DID No. 84/2014) POOJA Akshay Kumar Singh vs. M/s G4S Secure Solution (I) Pvt. Ltd. AGGARWAL Page No. 8 of 17 Digitally signed by POOJA AGGARWAL Date: 2025.05.30 15:39:52 +0530 amendment under section 2A (2) and (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as amended in 2010, whereby an application could be made directly to the Labour Court for adjudication of dispute after the expiry of 45 days from the date of the application to the conciliation officer, which application would be adjudicated as if it were a dispute referred to by the government. It has also been asserted that the conciliation officer had taken up the matter in 237/CO - II/13/WD/LAB/1242 initiated on 01.11.2013, which were concluded on 12.02.2014.
21. In its written statement, the management has admitted the factum of the conciliation officer having taken up the matter in the conciliation 237/CO-II/13/WD/LAB/1242 initiated on 01.11.2013, which had been concluded on 12.02.2014.
22. Though the management had raised an objection as to the claim having been raised by the workman without following the proper procedure prescribed under section 2A of the ID act, it failed to lead any evidence to demonstrate or prove what procedure has not been so followed, nor any non- compliance of the procedure was pointed out by Ld. AR for the management during the course of final arguments.
23. With the initiation of the conciliation on 01.11.2013 as well as its conclusion on 12.02.2014, having been admitted to be a matter of record, and in the absence of any evidence having been led by the management to prove the non-compliance, it has held that the management has failed to discharge the onus LC No. 127/2016 (Old DID No. 84/2014) POOJA Akshay Kumar Singh vs. M/s G4S Secure Solution (I) Pvt. Ltd. AGGARWAL Page No. 9 of 17 Digitally signed by POOJA AGGARWAL Date: 2025.05.30 15:40:01 +0530 cast upon it, and this issue accordingly decided against the management.
Issue no. (iii) Whether the services of the workman were terminated illegally and unjustifiably by the management, if so, its effect? OPW
24. The onus to prove this issue was on the workman. In his evidence affidavit i.e. Ex WW1/A, the workman has testified that it was the Regional Manager, Mr. Xabir Joseph, who had called him and forced him to sign some blank papers informing him, that he was being demoted as a head guard and his salary would be deducted, and that when the workman protested to the same asking for written orders, Mr. Joseph got annoyed, threatened him and also terminated his services on 05.09.2013, without any written order or paying or offering any notice pay, service compensation, bonus, gratuity, leave encashment, etc.
25. The management failed to discredit the said oral testimony of the workman through its cross-examination and though the workman admitted that he had not received any termination letter from the management, he maintained that he had been verbally terminated by them.
26. On the other hand, MW1 has testified that the workman had himself stopped reporting for his duty after 05.09.2013 out of his own volition, without an intimation to the management and thereby he had abandoned the job.
27. It is a settled proposition of law, that in cases where the LC No. 127/2016 (Old DID No. 84/2014) POOJA Akshay Kumar Singh vs. M/s G4S Secure Solution (I) Pvt. Ltd. AGGARWAL Page No. 10 of 17 Digitally signed by POOJA AGGARWAL Date: 2025.05.30 15:40:08 +0530 management takes the plea of abandonment of service, it is for the management to bring on record sufficient evidence for the same. On the failure to report for duty, the management has to call upon the worker and if he refuses to report, then an enquiry is required to be ordered against him and accordingly action taken and in the absence of anything placed on record by the management, no presumption can be drawn against the workman. Strength for this interpretation is drawn from the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Fateh Chand v. Labour Court, (2012 SCC OnLine Del 281), wherein it was held that:
" It is also a settled legal position that abandonment of service is different from absenteeism. Abandonment of service is the voluntarily relinquishment of ones services with the intention not to resume the same. It is a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of each case and mere absenteeism for a continuous period does not mean that the employee has abandoned his service. The management has to bring on record sufficient material to show that the employee has abandoned the service and abandonment cannot be attributed to the employee without there being sufficient evidence. On the failure to report for duty, the management has to call upon the employee and if he refuses to report, then an enquiry is required to be ordered against him and accordingly action taken. In the absence of anything placed on record by the petitioner management, no presumption against the respondent can be drawn. No enquiry in this case was set up by the petitioner management and even no letter was sent by the management to the respondent workman calling upon him to resume his duty. The case in hand is a clear case of violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act as the petitioner management failed to adhere to the procedure prescribed under Section 25-F of the I.D. Act before dispensing with the service of the respondent workman."
(Emphasis supplied)
28. In the present case, the management has relied only upon the self serving oral testimony of MW1 and has not even produced any attendance record to show that it had marked LC No. 127/2016 (Old DID No. 84/2014) Akshay Kumar Singh vs. M/s G4S Secure Solution (I) Pvt. Ltd. POOJA Page No. 11 of 17 AGGARWAL Digitally signed by POOJA AGGARWAL Date: 2025.05.30 15:40:17 +0530 the workman as absent on any day after 05.09.2013.
29. MW1 has also admitted during his cross-examination, that the management has not sent any letter to the workman for rejoining of services, nor they had issued any chargesheet to him or conducted any domestic enquiry against him. Hence, from the evidence on record, the factum of the workman having remained absent on his own volition as as well as the factum of any attempt having been made by the management to call the workman back on duty has remained unproved. Consequently, the factum of the workman having abandoned his job remains unproved.
30. It is also pertinent to note here that the workman has relied upon his demand notice with postal receipt i.e. Ex WW1/2, and in the demand notice, he had categorically mentioned that it was the Regional Manager, Mr. Joseph, who had terminated his services on 05.09.2013, without any written order. During his cross-examination, MW1 admitted the address on the demand notice i.e. Ex WW1/2 to be correct address of the management. The receipt forming part of Ex.WW1/2 (also Ex.MW1/W1) is also dated 09.10.2013, which is the same date as the legal notice and the Janakpuri address of the management appears on the same.
31. In view of the presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, it is presumed that notice sent at the correct address of the management was delivered to them, despite which, for reasons best known to them, they did not reply to LC No. 127/2016 (Old DID No. 84/2014) POOJA Akshay Kumar Singh vs. M/s G4S Secure Solution (I) Pvt. Ltd. AGGARWAL Page No. 12 of 17 Digitally signed by POOJA AGGARWAL Date: 2025.05.30 15:40:25 +0530 the said demand notice and also failed to furnish any explanation for not having so replied, which warrants an inference that no reply was sent as the management did not dispute the contents of the demand notice.
32. It is further noted that it is the case of the workman that his services were illegally terminated by the Regional Manager Mr Joseph on 05.09.2013, after the workman protested signing of blank papers and his demotion, as he has testified as to the same in Ex WW1/A. Except a bald suggestion as to his services not having been terminated by the management, the management failed to lead any evidence to controvert the said testimony of the workman as to the reason/genesis of dismissal which has remained virtually unrebutted and on reason has come on record to disbelieve the same.
33. It is also noted that MW1 has testified in his evidence affidavit i.e. Ex MW1/A that the workman had been demoted as a head guard till 05.09.2013 on account of his misconduct. In his cross-examination, he maintained that the workman had been demoted from the post of supervisor though he testified that it was on account of poor performance. However, for reasons best known to them, the management led no evidence to prove as to when the purported demotion was effected.
34. The date when the management purportedly demoted the workman is very material, since as per the workman, it was due to his protest to such demotion and insistence on written LC No. 127/2016 (Old DID No. 84/2014) POOJA Akshay Kumar Singh vs. M/s G4S Secure Solution (I) Pvt. Ltd. AGGARWAL Page No. 13 of 17 Digitally signed by POOJA AGGARWAL Date: 2025.05.30 15:40:32 +0530 order, that his services were terminated by the management.
35. However, the management led no evidence to prove the date of such demotion nor have they examined their Regional Manager, Mr. Joseph to disprove the testimony of the workman as to Mr Joseph having terminated the services of the workman on 05.09.2013.
36. Hence, in the absence of any evidence except self serving testimony of MW1 as to the abandonment/prior demotion as well as in view of the non-examination of Mr. Joseph by the management, on a scale of preponderance of probabilities, it stands proved that the services of the workman were orally terminated on 05.09.2013 after he refused to sign on blank documents and agree to his demotion as a head guard, and that he had not abandoned the job on his own.
37. In as far as a legality of such termination is concerned, it is duly noted that by virtue of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, prior to retrenchment of a worker, it is necessary for the management to give one month's notice or notice pay in lieu thereof as also pay the retrenchment compensation to the worker.
38. The claimant/workman has categorically testified in Ex WW1/A that at the time of termination of his services, the management had not given, inter alia, any notice pay, service compensation etc. There is also no evidence on record that the management had complied with the provisions of Section LC No. 127/2016 (Old DID No. 84/2014) POOJA Akshay Kumar Singh vs. M/s G4S Secure Solution (I) Pvt. Ltd. AGGARWAL Page No. 14 of 17 Digitally signed by POOJA AGGARWAL Date: 2025.05.30 15:40:39 +0530 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 prior to his retrenchment. No reason has been brought forth to disbelieve the un-rebutted oral testimony of the workman in this respect. Hence, as in the present case, the conditions prescribed in Section 25F of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have not been complied with, the termination of the workman by the management is held to be illegal.
39. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the workman and against the management.
Issue no. (iv) Whether the workman is entitled to the relief claimed in the statement of claim? OPW; and Issue no. (v) Relief.
40. It is pertinent to note here that the workman seeks reinstatement with full back wages and consequential benefits.
41. In Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya, (2013) 10 SCC 324, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down as under:
"38. The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are:
38.1 In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule. 38.2 The aforesaid rule is subject to the rider that while deciding the issue of back wages, the adjudicating authority or the Court may take into consideration the length of service of the employee/workman, the nature of misconduct, if any, found proved against the employee/workman, the financial condition of the employer and similar other factors.
38.3 Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting back wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or the Court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages.
If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages, then it has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that LC No. 127/2016 (Old DID No. 84/2014) POOJA Akshay Kumar Singh vs. M/s G4S Secure Solution (I) Pvt. Ltd. AGGARWAL Page No. 15 of 17 Digitally signed by POOJA AGGARWAL Date: 2025.05.30 15:40:48 +0530 the employee/workman was gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she was drawing prior to the termination of service. This is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof of the existence of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averments about its existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the employee shows that he was not employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically plead and prove that the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same or substantially similar emoluments.
38.4 .....
38.5 The cases in which the competent Court or Tribunal finds that the employer has acted in gross violation of the statutory provisions and/or the principles of natural justice or is guilty of victimizing the employee or workman, then the concerned Court or Tribunal will be fully justified in directing payment of full back wages. In such cases, the superior Courts should not exercise power under Article 226 or 136 of the Constitution and interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court, etc., merely because there is a possibility of forming a different opinion on the entitlement of the employee/workman to get full back wages or the employer's obligation to pay the same. The Courts must always be kept in view that in the cases of wrongful / illegal termination of service, the wrongdoer is the employer and sufferer is the employee/workman and there is no justification to give premium to the employer of his wrongdoings by relieving him of the burden to pay to the employee/workman his dues in the form of full back wages. 38.6 ...
38.7 ...."
(Emphasis supplied)
42. In the present case, the factum of the workman being the employee of the management since 1997 is not in dispute. Hence, it stands proved that he had worked with the management for about 16 years prior to illegal termination of his services. In view of the parameters laid down in Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya, (supra), with the termination being illegal and no exceptional circumstances having been brought on record to deny the relief of reinstatement, the workman is held entitled for reinstatement.
LC No. 127/2016 (Old DID No. 84/2014) POOJA Akshay Kumar Singh vs. M/s G4S Secure Solution (I) Pvt. Ltd. AGGARWAL Page No. 16 of 17 Digitally signed by POOJA AGGARWAL Date: 2025.05.30 15:40:56 +0530
43. However, in respect of the quantum of back wages to be awarded, it is noted that neither in his statement of claim nor in his evidence affidavit Ex.WW1/A, the workman has ever averred that he is unemployed since the date of termination of his services. It is not the case of the workman that he could not obtain employment despite best efforts, as in his cross-examination he admitted that he had not applied anywhere for a job. In the absence of even any averment or statement by the workman that he was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages, it would be inequitable to award him full back wages.
44. Thus, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it is held that the management had illegally terminated the services of the workman and they are directed to re-instate the workman w.e.f 05.09.2013 i.e date of termination with continuity of services without any back wages. The claim is decided accordingly.
45. Copy of Award be uploaded on the website of RADC and be also sent to the concerned department through proper channels as per rules.
46. File be consigned to the record room after necessary compliance. Digitally signed by POOJA AGGARWAL POOJA Announced in the Open Court AGGARWAL Date:
2025.05.30 15:41:04 +0530 today on 30th May, 2025 (POOJA AGGARWAL) Presiding Officer Labour Court-01 Rouse Avenue District Court New Delhi(sa) LC No. 127/2016 (Old DID No. 84/2014) Akshay Kumar Singh vs. M/s G4S Secure Solution (I) Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 17 of 17