Delhi District Court
Sh. Geetam Singh 2 Ors vs Ms Central Secretariat Club Regd on 29 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF
PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT-01:
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT: NEW DELHI
Presided Over by: Ms. Pooja Aggarwal, DHJS
LIR No. 2384/2016 (Old ID No. 140/2012)
CNR No. DLCT13-000623-2012
In the matter of:
1. Mr. Geetam Singh,
S/o Sh. Kundan Lal
R/o Village Talkatora Bagh,
Park Lane No. 4, New Delhi-110001.
Mobile No. Not provided
2. Mr. Lalta Prasad
S/o Sh. Bajrangi Yadav
R/o Koyam, PO Badra Goura,
Distt. Patparganj, U.P.
Mobile No. Not provided
3. Mr. Manphool Singh
S/o Sh. Prahlad Singh
R/o VPO Bohatwas Ahir Tahe,
District Rewari, Haryana.
Mobile No. Not provided
.....Workmen
Details of immediate family member of workman Geetam:
Name: Smt. Rekha (wife)
Mobile No.: 7838739371
Details of immediate family member of workman Lalta:
Name: Smt. Radha (wife)
Mobile No.: 9956499715
Details of immediate family member of workman Manphool:
Name: Smt. Saroj (wife)
Mobile No.: 8607399729
Digitally signed
by POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.03.29
LIR No. 2384/2016 (Old ID No. 140/2012) 16:55:06 +0530
Geetam Singh & 2 Ors. vs. M/s Central Secretariat Club (Regd.) Page No. 1 of 40
Details of the Authorized Representative of workmen :
Name: Mr. B.K. Prasad
Mobile no. 9810005991
Email ID: [email protected]
VERSUS
M/s Central Secretariat Club (Regd.),
7-10, Park Street, Talkatora Road,
New Delhi .....Management
Details of the Authorized Representative of the management:
Name: Mr. Satya Narayan Vashishth
Mobile no. Not Provided
E mail ID of management: Not provided
Date of Receipt of Reference : 28.09.2012
Date of Award : 29.03.2025
AWARD
1. A reference was received from the then Deputy Labour
Commissioner (New Delhi District), Government of NCT of
Delhi vide its order No. F.No. C-59/LO/NDD/2011/(21)/(106)
dated 25.09.2012 under Section 10(1)(c) and 12(5) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 regarding an industrial dispute
between Sh. Geetam Singh s/o Sh. Kundan Lal, Sh. Lalta
Prasad s/o Sh. Bajrangi Yadav and Sh. Manphool Singh s/o
Sh. Prahlad Singh (hereinafter referred to as 'workmen') with
the management of M/s Central Secretariat Club (hereinafter
referred to as 'management') with the following terms of
reference:
"Whether the services of Shri Geetam Singh S/o Sh.
Kundan Lal and 2 Ors. (As per annexure 'A' ) are illegally
and or unjustifiably terminated. If yes what relief are they
entitled to and what directions are necessary in this
respect?" Digitally signed
by POOJA
AGGARWAL
POOJA
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.03.29
16:55:28
+0530
LIR No. 2384/2016 (Old ID No. 140/2012)
Geetam Singh & 2 Ors. vs. M/s Central Secretariat Club (Regd.) Page No. 2 of 40
2. After receipt of reference, notices were issued to the workmen
who filed their common statement of claim.
Facts as per the statement of claim
3. Briefly stated, it has been asserted that the workman Geetam,
who had joined the management on 13.12.1989 on the post of
mali (gardener), was confirmed in 1992 and his name was
entered in the payroll of the management.
4. It has also been asserted that the workman Lalta Prasad had
joined the management in 1986 and was confirmed in the year
1989 whereas the workman Manphool Singh had joined the
management in 1988 and was confirmed in the year 1994.
5. It has been further asserted that the workmen were permanent
employees whose names were on the payroll of the
management but the office bearers of the management were
humiliating them on trivial grounds for long.
6. Qua the workman Manphool, it has been asserted that the
management deliberately started harassing him by compelling
him to act as a helper and do jobs like cleaning toilets,
sweeping etc. which did not fall in the realm of duties of
permanent employees as per the system followed by the
management. It has also been stated that on 01.08.2011 and
09.08.2011, the management issued two letters to him to the
effect that in case he failed to do the aforementioned duties,
disciplinary action would be initiated against him, to which
the workman submitted his reply on 11.08.2011 inter-alia
Digitally
signed by
POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
LIR No. 2384/2016 (Old ID No. 140/2012)
2025.03.29
16:55:37
+0530
Geetam Singh & 2 Ors. vs. M/s Central Secretariat Club (Regd.) Page No. 3 of 40
asking the management to treat him impartially and fairly as
he had not committed any mistake but the management
disregarded the reply and terminated his services on
17.08.2011 vide a letter issued by the Secretary of the
management.
7. Qua the workman Geetam Singh, it has been asserted that he
was also treated with equal vice and discrimination, and
though his EPF was being deducted from April 1995, he was
converted from a permanent employee to a temporary
employee suddenly in August 1995 and his EPF contribution
was stopped.
8. It has also been stated that on 28.06.2011, the Secretary of the
management issued a termination order without any prior
notice dispensing the services of Geetam and Lalta Prasad
stating that their services were no longer required as they had
become surplus, even though many other employees were
appointed by the management lately in similar capacity who
continued to work.
9. It has been asserted that the termination of Manphool Singh
was violative of section 25F(a) and (b) of Industrial Disputes
Act as no notice, notice pay or compensation was given nor
the said workman was given any opportunity of being heard
and no enquiry was conducted which was violative of
principles of natural justice.
10. It has been further asserted that the order dated 28.06.2011,
Digitally signed
by POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
LIR No. 2384/2016 (Old ID No. 140/2012)
2025.03.29
16:55:48 +0530
Geetam Singh & 2 Ors. vs. M/s Central Secretariat Club (Regd.) Page No. 4 of 40
vide which the workmen Lalta Prasad and Geetam Singh had
been asked to collect their salaries for July to September 2011,
was not as per law as 15 days' average salary for every
completed year of continuous service of the workman was
required to be paid and no notice under Section 9A of
Industrial Disputes Act, had been given to the workmen
Geetam Singh, Mali and Lalta Prasad, Mali before the work of
mali was handed over to CPWD.
11. It has also been asserted that the general rule of last come first
go has also not been followed by the management and that its
action in issuing frivolous memos and warnings to the
workmen was unfair labour practice under the Fifth Schedule
of Section 2(ra) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
12. It has also been asserted that the malis from CPWD were not
supposed to work in the lawns of the management and that the
termination of the workmen was in response to the objections
raised by them regarding illegal practices of the management
which included non-payment of minimum wages, non-
payment of necessary allowances that the workmen were
entitled to.
13. It has been further asserted that the office bearers of the
management had been harassing the workmen whose specific
duties were in the billiard room or card room or at the gate, to
act as helpers and do work like cleaning, washing, sweeping
etc.
Digitally
signed by
POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.03.29
16:55:57
+0530
LIR No. 2384/2016 (Old ID No. 140/2012)
Geetam Singh & 2 Ors. vs. M/s Central Secretariat Club (Regd.) Page No. 5 of 40
14. It has also been asserted that the workmen have remained
unemployed after termination from the services and hence, the
present claim seeking reinstatement with full back wages,
continuity of service and all consequential benefits.
Facts as per the reply
15. In its reply, the management made preliminary submissions to
the effect that it was a club duly registered under the Societies
Registration Act 1860 which catered to Central Government
Employees and most of its employees were kept as helpers to
cater to the requirements such as helping the members/guests
in playing the billiards, bridge, rummy, looking after parking
vehicles, drinking water and other miscellaneous helps to the
members and guests etc. It has been further asserted that the
management had kept the helpers for miscellaneous purposes
and not in any specific specialized job as the nature of the job
was interchangeable as per the requirements and the
employees had no problems in carrying on with the same i.e. a
helper was used for aforementioned miscellaneous work. It
has been further asserted that the helper could not do the
specialized work of a mali or a sweeper for which there were
specific employees.
16. It has been further asserted that the workman Manphool
Singh was initially given the duty to provide water to the
members and guests and other helpers were also given similar
or other duties as deemed fit by the management.
17. It has been further asserted that the management had entered
Digitally signed
by POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
LIR No. 2384/2016 (Old ID No. 140/2012)
2025.03.29
16:56:08 +0530
Geetam Singh & 2 Ors. vs. M/s Central Secretariat Club (Regd.) Page No. 6 of 40
into an arrangement with the Government whereby the
maintenance of its lawn was to be taken care by the CPWD in
lieu of the licence fee being paid to the Government in
pursuance of which the malis of the government started to
maintain the lawns of the management and there was no work
for the two malis earlier appointed by them, so the
management decided to relieve the said malis and they were
offered three months salary, gratuity and all other permissible
benefits as per law. It has been further asserted that the
services of Geetam Singh and Lalta Prasad were dispensed
after a conscientious administrative decision.
18. It has been further asserted that it was also decided by the
management that indiscipline and non-compliance of
instructions by the workman Manphool Singh who
misbehaved with its guests and members, did not follow the
instructions given by the management and also did not
perform his duties as per the norms, was disrupting its
discipline.
19. It has been asserted that on account of the explanations given,
the dispensing of the malis and the termination of the helper
Manphool Singh was fully justified and legally sustainable
and the management, as offered earlier was still ready and
willing to offer the legally permissible dues to be collected by
the workmen.
20. It has been asserted that the workmen had refused to accept
the order/letter of the management dispensing the malis from
Digitally signed
by POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
LIR No. 2384/2016 (Old ID No. 140/2012) 2025.03.29
16:56:20 +0530
Geetam Singh & 2 Ors. vs. M/s Central Secretariat Club (Regd.) Page No. 7 of 40
service which had to be sent by post. It has been further
asserted that various other letters offering to accept the
payments were also refused to be accepted by the workmen.
21. It has been asserted that the workman Geetam Singh had
worked with the DMS (Delhi Milk Scheme) Milk Booth in the
evenings, during his duty hours and he was still working
there. It has also been asserted that the workman Geetam
Singh owned and ran a general kirana store at Park Street
(Behind 5-6 Park Street), Near Shiv Mandir, Talkatora
Garden, New Delhi, sitting there as per his convenience.
22. On merits, the management has denied the contents of the
statement of claim asserting that as per its records, the date of
joining of workman Geetam Singh was 01.03.1993, of
workman Lalta Prasad was 01.04.1989 and of workman
Manphool Singh was 01.05.1994. It has been further asserted
that as per its records, workman Geetam Singh had worked for
18 years, workman Lalta Prasad had worked for 22 years and
workman Manphool Singh had worked for 17 years.
23. It has been further asserted that management never received
any complaint of harassment/humiliation from the workmen.
It has been stated that the management already had sweepers
(which was a specialized job) for the duties mentioned in
para-7 of the statement of claim. It has been further asserted
that the workman Manphool Singh had been asked to submit
his reply to the letters issued by the management, but he rarely
submitted the replies and also refused to accept some of the
Digitally
signed by
POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.03.29
LIR No. 2384/2016 (Old ID No. 140/2012) 16:56:30
+0530
Geetam Singh & 2 Ors. vs. M/s Central Secretariat Club (Regd.) Page No. 8 of 40
letters. It has also been asserted that there were many
complaints against the workman Manphool Singh by the
members and guests with whom he used to misbehave and he
had also damaged the vehicles of some members / guests, and
that finding no other option, the management had terminated
his services vide letter dated 17.08.2011 which was duly
accepted by the workman Manphool Singh.
24. It has been further asserted that no letter to the management
had ever gone returned since all the letters were received by
them and it appeared that the workman Manphool Singh had
manipulated to have the letter dated 11.08.2011 returned. It
has also been asserted that most of the time, the workman did
not do his duties and used to sit idle or walk around and
disrespected the members / guests.
25. In respect of para-11 of the statement of claim, it has been
asserted that the matter was sub-judice before the Hon'ble
High Court of Delhi. In respect of pay and compensation
Section 25(a) and (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the
management has asserted that without prejudice to its rights
and contentions, it was ready and willing to make the entire
payment under the Act for retrenchment. It has also been
asserted that a number of letters had been sent by the
management to Manphool Singh i.e. letter dated 28.06.2011
(received and replied by workman Manphool Singh),
19.07.2011 (not accepted), 02.08.2011, 09.08.2011,
19.08.2011 (all received by workman Manphool Singh) giving
him ample opportunities to show cause regarding his improper
Digitally signed
by POOJA
AGGARWAL
POOJA
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.03.29
LIR No. 2384/2016 (Old ID No. 140/2012)
16:56:42
+0530
Geetam Singh & 2 Ors. vs. M/s Central Secretariat Club (Regd.) Page No. 9 of 40
way of working and indiscipline after which the management
was compelled to terminate his services.
26. All the other averments made by the workmen in their
statement of claim have been denied on merits.
Facts as per the rejoinder
27. In their rejoinder, the workmen denied the preliminary
objections as well as the averments made in the reply and
reiterated the contents of their statement of claim.
Issues
28. After completion of the pleadings, the following issues were
framed by the Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 27.08.2014:
(i) As per terms of reference. OPW
(ii) Relief.
Workmen Evidence
29. WW1 Sh. Geetam Singh tendered his evidence affidavit i.e.
Ex. WW1/A and relied upon the following documents:
S.No. Description of Documents Exhibit/Mark
1. Copy of record of personal file. Ex.WW1/1
(objected to as to
mode of proof)
2. Copy of termination by way of Ex. WW1/2
showing surplus w.e.f. (objected to as to
28.06.2011 mode of proof)
30. He was duly cross-examined on behalf of management,
wherein, inter-alia, copy of letter dated 28.06.2011 i.e. Ex.
WW1/M-1 was put to him. Digitally
signed by
POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.03.29
16:56:51
+0530
LIR No. 2384/2016 (Old ID No. 140/2012)
Geetam Singh & 2 Ors. vs. M/s Central Secretariat Club (Regd.) Page No. 10 of 40
31. WW-2 Sh. Lalta Prasad tendered his evidence affidavit i.e.
Ex.WW2/A and relied upon copy of termination by way of
showing surplus w.e.f. 28.06.2011 i.e. Ex. WW2/2 (objected
to as mode of proof). He was duly cross-examined on behalf
of the management, wherein, inter alia, copy of letter dated
28.06.2011 i.e. Ex. WW2/M1 and copy of letter dated
11.07.2011 i.e. Ex. WW2/M2 were put to him.
32. WW-3 Sh. Manphool Singh tendered his evidence affidavit
i.e. Ex.WW3/A and relied upon copy of record of personal file
i.e. Ex.WW3/1 as well as copy of termination order dated
17.08.2011 i.e. Ex.WW3/2 (objected to as to mode of proof).
He was duly cross-examined on behalf of management,
wherein inter alia copy of letter dated 08/10.11.2010 i.e. Ex.
WW3/M1, copy of letter dated 12.11.2010 i.e. Ex. WW3/M2,
letter dated 06.12.2010 i.e. Ex. WW3/M3, reply dated
11.12.2010 i.e. Ex. WW3/M4, office memorandum dated
28.06.2011 i.e. Ex. WW3/M5, reply dated 11.07.2011 along
with its covering envelope sent through registered post i.e. Ex.
WW3/M6, office order dated 01.08.2011 received on
02.08.2011 i.e. Ex. WW3/M7, office order dated 09.08.2011
i.e. Ex.WW3/M8 and order dated 17.08.2011 i.e. Ex.
WW3/M9 were put to him.
Management Evidence
33. The management examined MW1 Sh. Harbhajan Singh, the
then President, who tendered his evidence affidavit i.e.
Ex.MW1/A1 qua workman Geetam Singh and relied upon the
Digitally
signed by
POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.03.29
LIR No. 2384/2016 (Old ID No. 140/2012) 16:57:00
+0530
Geetam Singh & 2 Ors. vs. M/s Central Secretariat Club (Regd.) Page No. 11 of 40
following documents :
S.No. Description of Documents Exhibit/Mark
1. Photocopy of order dated Already
28.06.2011 Ex.WW1/M1
2. Photocopy of speed post receipt Mark A
dated 29.06.2011
3. Photocopy of Speed Post AD Mark B
card dated 23.07.2011 (correct
date 02.07.2011)
4. Photocopy of letter dated Mark C
11.07.2011
5. Photocopy of speed post receipt Mark D
dated 02.08.2011
6. Photocopy of Speed Post AD Mark E
card dated Nil
7. Photocopy of two cheques Mark F
bearing nos. 008118 & 008119, (colly.)
both dated 28.06.2011
8. Photocopy of voucher dated Nil Mark G
for the amount of Rs. 56,680/-.
9. Photocopy of voucher dated Nil Mark H
for the amount of Rs. 17,004/-.
10. Photocopy of receipt dated Nil of Mark I
the aforementioned two cheques
11. Photocopy of letter dated Mark J
11.08.2011
12. Photocopy of speed post receipt Mark K
dated 30.08.2011
13. Photocopy of AD card dated Mark L
02.09.2011
34. MW1 has also tendered his evidence affidavit i.e. Ex.
MW1/A2 qua the workman Lalta Prasad and relied upon the
following documents:
Digitally
signed by
POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.03.29
16:57:09
+0530
LIR No. 2384/2016 (Old ID No. 140/2012)
Geetam Singh & 2 Ors. vs. M/s Central Secretariat Club (Regd.) Page No. 12 of 40
S.No. Description of Documents Exhibit/Mark
1. Photocopy of order dated Already
28.06.2011 Ex.WW2/M1
2. Photocopy of speed post receipt Mark A1
dated 29.06.2011
3. Photocopy of Speed Post AD Mark B1
card dated 23.07.2011
4. Photocopy of letter dated Already
11.07.2011 Ex.WW2/M2
5. Photocopy of speed post receipt Mark C1
dated 02.08.2011
6. Photocopy of Speed Post AD Mark D1
card dated 05.08.2011
7. Photocopy of two cheques Mark E1
bearing no. 008121 & 008122, (colly)
both dated 28.06.2011
8. Photocopy of voucher dated Nil Mark F1
for the amount of Rs. 21,192/-.
9. Photocopy of voucher dated Nil Mark G1
for the amount of Rs. 81,236/-.
10. Photocopy of receipt dated Nil Mark H1
of the aforementioned two
cheques
11. Photocopy of letter dated Mark I1
11.08.2011.
12. Photocopy of speed post receipt Mark J1
dated 30.08.2011
13. Photocopy of the envelope Mark K1
addressed to Lalta Prasad
35. MW1 has also tendered his evidence affidavit i.e. Ex.
MW1/A3 qua the workman Manphool and relied upon the
following documents:
Digitally
signed by
POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.03.29
16:57:16
+0530
LIR No. 2384/2016 (Old ID No. 140/2012)
Geetam Singh & 2 Ors. vs. M/s Central Secretariat Club (Regd.) Page No. 13 of 40
S.No Description of Documents Exhibit/Mark
1. Photocopy of appointment letter Mark A2
dated 01.05.1994
2. Photocopy of application for Mark B2
employment dated 01.05.1994
3. Photocopy of the complaint by Mark C2
I.S. Pathania to the Secretary of
Management dated 26.10.2010
4. Photocopy of letter dated Mark D2
27.10.2010 of V.K. Pandey sent to
the President of Management
5. Photocopy of letter dated Already
08/10.11.2010 Ex.WW3/M1
6. Photocopy of letter dated Mark E2
17.11.2010 sent by V.K. Pandey
to the President of Management
7. Photocopy of show cause letter Mark F2
dated 06.12.2010
8. Photocopy of complaint dated Mark G2
01.06.2011 by Arun Kumar to the
President of management
9. Photocopy of hand written Mark H2
recommendation dated
02.06.2011
10. Photocopy of letter dated Mark I2
01.06.2011 sent by Arun Kumar
to the President of management
and also forwarded to the General
Secretary of management.
11. Photocopy of the letter dated Mark J2
01.06.2011 sent by Arun Kumar
to the President of management
and also forwarded to Billiards
Secretary of management.
12. Photocopy of the letter dated Mark K2
01.06.2011 sent by Arun Kumar
to President of the management
and also forwarded to Joint
Digitally
signed by
POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
LIR No. 2384/2016 (Old ID No. 140/2012)
2025.03.29
16:57:26
+0530
Geetam Singh & 2 Ors. vs. M/s Central Secretariat Club (Regd.) Page No. 14 of 40
Secretary of management.
13. Photocopy of the typed Mark L2
recommendation dtd 02.06.2011
14. Photocopy of complaint dated Mark M2
15.06.2011
15. Photocopy of hand written noting Mark N2
on complaint dated 15.06.2011
16. Photocopy of memorandum dated Mark O2
28.06.2011
17. Photocopy of complaint dated Mark P2
16.07.2011 from Tarun Pahwa to
General Secretary management
18. Photocopy of complaint dated Mark Q2
16.07.2011 from Arun Kumar to
the Secretary management
19. Photocopy of office memorandum Mark R2
dated 19.07.2011 towards
complaint of Tarun Pahwa
20. Photocopy of office memorandum Mark S2
dated 19.07.2011 towards
complaint of Arun Kumar
21. Photocopy of office order dated Mark T2
01.08.2011. (Carbon copy already
Ex.WW3/M7)
22. Photocopy of office order dated Mark-U2
09.08.2011.(Carbon copy already
Ex.WW3/M8)
23. Photocopy of office order dated Mark V-2
17.08.2011.(Carbon copy already
ExWW3/ M9)
36. He was duly cross-examined on behalf of the workmen
during which which, inter-alia, he pointed out a document
Mark-X1 as being the order of CPWD vide which it had taken
over part of the club for maintenance and he also produced a
reply of CPWD under RTI i.e. Mark-X2A (Colly) to contend Digitally signed
by POOJA
AGGARWAL
POOJA
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.03.29
16:57:35
LIR No. 2384/2016 (Old ID No. 140/2012) +0530
Geetam Singh & 2 Ors. vs. M/s Central Secretariat Club (Regd.) Page No. 15 of 40
that the horticulture staff of CPWD was maintaining the park.
37. The management had also examined MW2 Sh. H S Bhogal
whose examination-in-chief and part cross-examination was
conducted, but the cross-examination could not be concluded
as he expired before the same.
38. MW3 Sh. Arun Kumar tendered his evidence affidavit
Ex.MW3/A and also relied upon the following documents
S.No. Description of Documents Exhibit / Mark
1. Complaint to President dated Ex.MW3/1
01.06.2011 sent to the Vice
President
2. Complaint to President dated Ex.MW3/2
01.06.2011
3. Complaint to President and Ex.MW3/3
copy of General Secretary
4. Complaint to President and Ex.MW3/4
copy to Billiard's Secretary
5. Complaint with copy to Joint Ex.MW3/5
Secretary
6. Complaint dated 16.07.2011 Ex.MW3/6
to the Secretary
39. He was duly cross-examined on behalf of the workmen.
40. MW4 Sh. Tarun Pahwa tendered his evidence affidavit
Ex.MW4/A (endorsed as Ex.MW4/1) and relied upon the
document i.e. complaint to the President Mark-A. He was
duly cross-examined on behalf of the workmen.
41. MW5 Sh. Harcharan Singh tendered his evidence affidavit,
Digitally
signed by
POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
LIR No. 2384/2016 (Old ID No. 140/2012) 2025.03.29
16:57:46
+0530
Geetam Singh & 2 Ors. vs. M/s Central Secretariat Club (Regd.) Page No. 16 of 40
which was endorsed as Ex.MW5/A and relied upon the
document i.e. complaint to the President, Ex.MW5/1. He was
duly cross-examined on behalf of the workmen.
Final Arguments
42. Final arguments were then advanced on behalf of the
workmen by their Authorized Representative but none
appeared on behalf of the management for the same despite
opportunity.
43. The final arguments as advanced have been carefully
considered along with the evidence on record. After careful
consideration of the pleadings and evidence on record, the
issue wise findings are as under:
Issue No. (i): As per terms of reference, and
Issue no (ii): Relief
44. In the present case, the reference has been received in respect
of the illegality/ unjustifiability of the termination of the
workmen, Geetam Singh, Lalta Prasad and Manphool Singh.
Qua workmen Geetam Singh and Lalta Prasad
45. In their respective evidence affidavits, i.e. Ex WW1/A as well
as Ex. WW2/A, the workmen Geetam and Lalta Prasad have
testified to the effect that their services had been terminated
by the management on 28.06.2011, vide termination order i.e.
Ex.WW1/2 (also on record as Ex WW1/M1, Ex WW2/2 and
Ex WW2/M1) on the ground that they had become surplus,
even though they had performed duties for 21 and 24 years
Digitally
signed by
POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.03.29
16:57:54
+0530
LIR No. 2384/2016 (Old ID No. 140/2012)
Geetam Singh & 2 Ors. vs. M/s Central Secretariat Club (Regd.) Page No. 17 of 40
respectively, without giving any notice of 21 days and without
serving one month notice, notice pay or compensation before
termination of their services.
46. The factum of the management having terminated the
services of the workmen, Geetam and Lalta Prasad vide order/
letter dated 28.06.2011 is not even in dispute as MW1 has
himself testified as to the same in his evidence affidavit i.e.
Ex. MW1/A1 and has also relied upon the order /letter dated
28.06.2011 i.e. Ex WW1/M1 and Ex WW2/M1.
47. It needs to be borne in mind that by virtue of Section 2 (oo) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, retrenchment means termination
of services of a workman for any reason, otherwise than as a
punishment by way of disciplinary action with certain
exceptions as enumerated in Section 2(oo)(a), (b), (bb) and (c)
of the Industrial Disputes Act.
48. Since, the termination of the workmen Geetam and Lalta
Prasad is not averred to be a punishment by way of
disciplinary action, nor is it contended to be within the ambit
of exceptions as enumerated in Section 2(oo)(a), (b), (bb) and
(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, prior to retrenchment of a
workman, it was incumbent upon the management to comply
with the conditions laid down in Section 25F of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 i.e. the workmen were to be given a one
month's notice in writing indicating the reason for
retrenchment or wages in lieu of such notice and at the time of
retrenchment, compensation equivalent to 15 day's average
Digitally
signed by
POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.03.29
LIR No. 2384/2016 (Old ID No. 140/2012) 16:58:05
+0530
Geetam Singh & 2 Ors. vs. M/s Central Secretariat Club (Regd.) Page No. 18 of 40
pay for every completed year of service or any part thereof in
excess of six months is also to be paid to them.
49. However, in the case at hand, it is not even the stand of the
management that prior to retrenchment of the workmen
Geetam and Lalta Prasad, they had paid any retrenchment
compensation to them.
50. It is duly noted that as per Ex WW1/M1 (also Ex.WW1/2, Ex
WW2/2 and Ex WW2/M1), the services of the workmen
Geetam and Lalta Prasad had been decided to be dispensed
with w.e.f. 01.07.2011. Hence, it was incumbent upon the
management to have paid/ offered to pay the said
compensation along with the termination letter. However, the
letter/ order i.e. Ex.WW1/M1 (also Ex.WW1/2, Ex WW2/2
and Ex WW2/M1), is conspicuously silent as to the same.
51. Rather, MW1 has testified in his evidence affidavit, Ex.
MW1/A1, to the effect that vide order dated 28.06.2011, the
executive committee of the management had decided to pay
three months' salary with all other admissible dues w.e.f.
01.07.2011 in advance to the workmen Geetam and Lalta
Prasad. He has also testified that letters dated 11.07.2011 i.e.
Mark C and Ex.WW2/M2 were sent to the workmen Geetam
and Lalta Prasad vide speed post/AD on 02.08.2011
requesting them to collect the cheque payments, being salary
of June 2011, payment in lieu of notice period (01.07.2011 to
30.09.2011) and gratuity, whereafter, reminder letters dated
11.08.2011 were sent to them i.e. Mark J and Mark I1
Digitally signed
by POOJA
AGGARWAL
POOJA
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.03.29
16:58:13
LIR No. 2384/2016 (Old ID No. 140/2012)
+0530
Geetam Singh & 2 Ors. vs. M/s Central Secretariat Club (Regd.) Page No. 19 of 40
respectively. MW1 has also testified to the effect that two
cheques of Rs. 17004/- and Rs 56680/- both dated 28.06.2011
were ready to be handed over to the workman Geetam as per
letter dated 11.08.2011 i.e. Mark J while two cheques of
Rs.21,192/- and Rs 81,236/- both dated 28.06.2011 were
ready to be handed over to the workman Lalta Prasad as per
letter dated 11.08.2011 i.e. Mark I1.
52. A meaningful reading of the aforesaid testimony and
documents, reveals that the payment of the notice pay and
gratuity was not offered to the workmen Geetam and Lalta
Prasad at the time of their termination/ retrenchment vide
letter Ex WW1/M1 (also Ex.WW1/2, Ex WW2/2 and Ex
WW2/M1), rather, the amount was offered to them for the
first time vide letter Ex WW2/M2 and Mark C dated
11.07.2011 respectively sent on 02.08.2011, which is
subsequent to not only the termination letter/order dated
28.06.2011 but also to the effective date of termination of the
workman Geetam and Lalta Prasad i.e. 01.07.2011, and hence
cannot be construed to be payment towards retrenchment
compensation which is required to be paid or offered to be
paid at the time of retrenchment or before the same.
53. Strength for this interpretation is drawn from the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pramod Jha and Ors. vs. State
of Bihar and Ors. (03.03.2003-SC): MANU/SC/0179/2003,
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"10. We have given our anxious consideration to submission and
counter-submission made before us in the light of the pleadings
and undisputed documents available on record. We are of the
Digitally signed
by POOJA
AGGARWAL
POOJA
AGGARWAL Date:
LIR No. 2384/2016 (Old ID No. 140/2012) 2025.03.29
16:58:21
+0530
Geetam Singh & 2 Ors. vs. M/s Central Secretariat Club (Regd.) Page No. 20 of 40
opinion that the appeals are devoid of any merit and liable to be
dismissed. The underlying object of Section 25F is two-fold.
Firstly, a retrenched employee must have one month's time
available at this disposal to search for alternate employment, and
so, either he should be given one month's notice of the proposed
termination or he should be paid wages for the notice period.
Secondly, the workman must be paid retrenchment compensation
at the time of retrenchment, or before, so that once having been
retrenched there should be no need for him to go to his employer
demanding retrenchment compensation and the compensation so
paid is not only a reward earned for his previous services rendered
to the employer but is also a sustenance to the worker for the
period which may be spent in searching for another employment.
Section 25F nowhere speaks of the retrenchment compensation
being paid or tendered to the worker along with one month's
notice ; on the contrary Clause (b) expressly provides for the
payment of compensation being made at the time of retrenchment
and by implication it would be permissible to pay the same before
retrenchment. Payment or tender of compensation after the time
when the retrenchment has taken effect would vitiate the
retrenchment and non-compliance with the mandatory provision
which has a beneficial purpose and a public policy behind would
result in nullifying the retrenchment. "
(Emphasis supplied)
54. In as far as the notice/notice pay is concerned, it is duly noted
that during the cross-examination of workman Geetam, the
management has relied upon the letter Ex.WW1/M1 to
contend that by virtue thereof, the management had asked him
to collect his three month salary and dues, which was
promptly denied by the workman Geetam.
55. A bare perusal of the same reveals that Ex WW1/M1 nowhere
offers to the workman to collect the notice pay, as it merely
conveys the decision of the management, but offers no details
as to how and when such pay will be paid or was to be
collected by the workman. No other document has been
proved by the management on record to prove payment of the
notice pay prior to or at the time of retrenchment.
Digitally
signed by
POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.03.29
LIR No. 2384/2016 (Old ID No. 140/2012) 16:58:31
+0530
Geetam Singh & 2 Ors. vs. M/s Central Secretariat Club (Regd.) Page No. 21 of 40
56. Though the management has relied upon the letter dated
11.07.2011, i.e. Mark C, sent to the workmen Geetam vide
speed post/ AD on 02.08.2011, the letter being dated
02.08.2011 is not contemporaneous with the time prior to or
even at the time of retrenchment, and hence cannot be said to
be in compliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes
Act.
57. Similar is the case of workman Lalta Prasad, in whose respect
the management has relied upon the letter Ex. WW2/M2 dated
11.07.2011 which is again subsequent to the termination of the
services of the workman and is also not in compliance of
Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
58. As the management has failed to plead and prove that they
had offered the notice pay or retrenchment compensation to
the workmen Geetam or Lalta Prasad prior to or at the time of
termination of their services, which was not collected by these
workmen, the conditions prescribed in Section 25F of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 remain unfulfilled and
hence, the termination of the workmen Geetam and Lalta by
the management is held to be illegal.
59. It has been vehemently argued by the AR of the workmen that
the management was required to comply with Section 9A of
the Industrial Disputes Act, prior to retrenching the workmen
Geetam and Lalta Prasad on the ground that they had become
surplus, i.e. it had to serve 21 days' notice to them.
Digitally signed
by POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.03.29
LIR No. 2384/2016 (Old ID No. 140/2012) 16:58:41 +0530
Geetam Singh & 2 Ors. vs. M/s Central Secretariat Club (Regd.) Page No. 22 of 40
60. However, it is duly noted that in the present case, no
reference has been received in respect of non-compliance of
Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act and the Labour
Court cannot travel beyond the scope of the reference which is
limited to examining the legality / justifiability of the
termination of the workmen.
61. Strength for this interpretation is drawn from the judgment in
Management of Jor Bagh Distributors Pvt. Ltd. vs. Workmen
(DELHC): MANU/DE/1129/1995, wherein the Hon'ble Delhi
High Court observed as under:
"....
2. On receipt of a report submitted by the Conciliation Officer
under Section 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Secretary (Labor,Delhi
Administration, on being satisfied that an industrial dispute
existed between the Management and its workmen, represented
by the Mercantile Bank Association (for short 'the Union') and
that the same deserved to be referred for adjudication to a Labour
Court, constituted under the Act, in exercise of powers conferred
by Section 10(1)(c) and Section 12(5) of the Act, referred for
adjudication to the Labour Court the following dispute.
"Whether the retrenchment of S/Sh. Deepak Som...(names of 57
workmen are stated) is legal and justified and, if not, to what
relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this
respect?"
.....
17. There cannot be any dispute on the proposition that the powers of a Labour Court or an Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate upon a reference must be confined to the terms of reference and the same cannot be enlarged by entertaining any dispute falling under any other item in the Schedule to the Act. It is a settled proposition of law that the jurisdiction of Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal is limited to the points referred and it cannot go into those questions, not referred to it, which otherwise are required to be adjudicated upon on a specific reference under the Act. .....
18. The facts as disclosed above, in the instant case are that the Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.03.29 LIR No. 2384/2016 (Old ID No. 140/2012) 16:58:51 +0530 Geetam Singh & 2 Ors. vs. M/s Central Secretariat Club (Regd.) Page No. 23 of 40 Management had retrenched the workmen concerned because they had been rendered surplus to its requirements and it was the retrenchment which was challenged. It was on that basis that a reference was sought and made that whether retrenchment of workmen, named therein, was legal and justified and if not, to what relief they are entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect. Items 10 and 11 Schedule-IV of the Act read with Section 9-A of the Act were not subject matter of reference. Neither the rationalisation, standardisation or improvement of plant or technique was the subject matter of dispute or reference, nor the increase or reduction in the number of persons employed or to be employed in any occupation or process or department or shift, occasioned by circumstances, over which employer has no control, was the subject matter of reference. Items 10 and 11 of Schedule-IV or the matters relating thereto are such on which, reference, if sought, it required to be made to an Industrial Tribunal and not to a Labour Court. These are not matters which can be ancillary or incidental to the reference in question. As such it was not permissible for the Labour Court to have gone to the extent of making an adjudication upon the question that whether the dispute fell under Item 11 of Schedule- IV for which notice under Section 9-A of the Act was required to be served upon the workmen in advance before taking any action for retrenchment. On the reference of retrenchment, the Labour Court had to confine itself on the question whether the same was legal and justified.
(Emphasis supplied)
62. In view of the aforesaid legal proposition, in the absence of any reference to the said effect, the question of permissibility or lack thereof in reducing the workforce without serving notice under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be adjudicated upon in this reference.
63. In as far as the issue in respect of the relief sought by the workmen Geetam and Lalta Prasad is concerned, it is duly noted that the aforesaid workmen seek reinstatement with full back wages and consequential benefits.
64. In Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Digitally signed by POOJA AGGARWAL POOJA AGGARWAL Date:
2025.03.29 LIR No. 2384/2016 (Old ID No. 140/2012) 16:59:01 +0530 Geetam Singh & 2 Ors. vs. M/s Central Secretariat Club (Regd.) Page No. 24 of 40 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 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 Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.03.29 LIR No. 2384/2016 (Old ID No. 140/2012) 16:59:12 +0530 Geetam Singh & 2 Ors. vs. M/s Central Secretariat Club (Regd.) Page No. 25 of 40 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)
65. In Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, (1980) 4 SCC 443, also referred to by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya, (2013) 10 SCC 324 as well as Tapash Kumar Paul v. BSNL, (2014) 15 SCC 313, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down as under:
"....Plain common sense dictates that the removal of an order terminating the services of workmen must ordinarily lead to the reinstatement of the services of the workmen. It is as if the order has never been and so it must ordinarily lead to back wages too. But there may be exceptional circumstances which make it impossible or wholly inequitable vis-a-vis the employer and workmen to direct reinstatement with full back wages. For instance, the industry might have closed down or might be in severe financial doldrums: the workmen concerned might have secured better or other employment elsewhere and so on. In such situations, there is a vestige of discretion left in the Court to make appropriate consequential orders. The Court may deny the relief of reinstatement where reinstatement is impossible because the industry has closed down. The Court may deny the relief of award of full back wages where that would place an impossible burden on the employer. In such and other exceptional cases the Court may mould the relief, but, ordinarily the relief to be awarded must be reinstatement with full back wages. That relief must be awarded where no special impediment in the way of awarding the relief is clearly shown. True, occasional hardship may be caused to an employer but we must remember that, more often than not, comparatively far greater hardship is certain to be caused to the workmen if the relief is denied than to the employer if the relief is granted."
(Emphasis supplied)
66. In the present case, the workmen Geetam Singh and Lalta Prasad have testified as to being employees of management since 1989 and 1986 respectively. In its written statement, the Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.03.29 16:59:21 +0530 LIR No. 2384/2016 (Old ID No. 140/2012) Geetam Singh & 2 Ors. vs. M/s Central Secretariat Club (Regd.) Page No. 26 of 40 management has admitted these workmen were employed since 1993 and 1989 respectively and have been employees of the management since atleast 18 and 22 years respectively at the time of termination of their services. The termination of the services of these workmen has been found to be illegal and no exceptional circumstances have been brought on record by management to warrant denial of relief of reinstatement to them.
67. In respect of the quantum of back wages to be awarded, both the workmen Geetam and Lalta Prasad have testified in their respective evidence affidavits i.e. Ex WW1/A and Ex. WW2/A, that they have remained unemployed since the termination of their services. For reasons best known to them, the management did not even cross-examine the workman Geetam in respect of his unemployment after termination of their services, nor the management led any evidence to prove that the workmen Geetam or Lalta Prasad were gainfully employed or getting wages equal to as were drawn by them prior to the termination of their services.
68. Though the management had asserted in its written statement that the workman Geetam Singh was working with the DMS (Delhi Milk Scheme) Milk Booth and owned and ran a general kirana store at Park Street (Behind 5-6 Park Street), Near Shiv Mandir, Talkatora Garden, New Delhi, sitting there as per his convenience, they led no evidence to prove the same as even the testimony of MW1 is silent in this respect.
Digitally signed by POOJA AGGARWALPOOJA AGGARWAL Date:
2025.03.29 16:59:28 +0530 LIR No. 2384/2016 (Old ID No. 140/2012) Geetam Singh & 2 Ors. vs. M/s Central Secretariat Club (Regd.) Page No. 27 of 40
69. In the absence of the any evidence having been led by the management to prove subsequent employment of the workmen Geetam Singh or Lalta Prasad, it is held that the management has failed to bring on record any circumstance warranting denial of grant of full back wages to them.
70. At this stage, it is also noted that though the pleadings of the parties are conspicuously silent as to the wages drawn by the workmen, MW1 has testified in his evidence affidavits i.e. that the dues towards three months' salary of workman Lalta were Rs 21,192/- while of workman Geetam were Rs 17,004/- which quantification of salary has not been controverted by the workmen in the cross-examination. Hence, it can be inferred that the last drawn monthly wages of workman Geetam Singh was about Rs 5,668/- while that of workman Lalta was about Rs 7,064/-.
71. Thus in view of the parameters laid down in Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya, (supra) the workmen Geetam and Lalta are held entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and consequential benefits.
Qua workman Manphool
72. In respect of workman Manphool, it is noted that as per the statement of claim, his services had been terminated vide letter dated 17.08.2011 issued by the management. During his evidence, he has relied upon the said letter as Ex WW3/2 (also put to him in his cross-examination as Ex WW1/M9).
Digitally
signed by
POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.03.29
16:59:37
+0530
LIR No. 2384/2016 (Old ID No. 140/2012) Geetam Singh & 2 Ors. vs. M/s Central Secretariat Club (Regd.) Page No. 28 of 40
73. The management has not controverted the factum of it having terminated the services of the workman Manphool vide the said termination order as even MW1 relied upon a copy of the letter as Mark V2. For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion, the termination order dated 17.08.2011 shall henceforth be referred to as Ex WW1/M9 only.
74. As per the termination order Ex WW1/M9, the management has terminated the services of the workman Manphool on account of misconduct i.e. misbehaviour with members and guests, non-compliance of directions of the management and non-performance of his duties / work assigned to him. Further, as per the order, despite oral directions given on 19.07.2011 and written directions given on 02.08.2011 and 09.08.2011, the workman did not perform his duties and contravened such directions of the management.
75. The workman has challenged his termination, mainly on the grounds that no inquiry was conducted by the management before termination of his services; no notice, notice pay or compensation was given to him prior to termination of his services; and on the ground that the allegations against him were arbitrary.
76. In respect of the first ground, it is noted that in its written statement, it was not even the case of the management that it had ever conducted any enquiry against the workman Manphool. Though in his cross-examination, MW1 had testified that before terminating the services of Manphool, Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.03.29 LIR No. 2384/2016 (Old ID No. 140/2012) 16:59:45 +0530 Geetam Singh & 2 Ors. vs. M/s Central Secretariat Club (Regd.) Page No. 29 of 40 enquiry was conducted and on the basis of the report of enquiry committee, his services were terminated, no enquiry record has been produced in the court. Hence, the factum of enquiry having been conducted by the management prior to the termination of services of workman Manphool remains unproved which also lends credence to the case of the workman.
77. Be that as it may, the mere absence of an enquiry having been conducted, does not ipso facto result in setting aside of the termination order, in as much as it is a settled proposition of law that in cases where no enquiry has been conducted by the employer or an enquiry so conducted has been set-aside, it is sill open to the management to lead evidence to justify its action.
78. Strength for this interpretation is drawn from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Workmen of M/s Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. The Management and Others (1973) 1 SCC 813, wherein, inter alia, it has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the tribunal gets the jurisdiction to consider the evidence placed before it for the first time in justification of the action taken if no enquiry has been held and that when fresh evidence is adduced for the first time, it is the Tribunal which has to be satisfied on such evidence about the guilt or otherwise of the workman concerned.
79. The relevant portions of the said judgment are reproduced as Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
LIR No. 2384/2016 (Old ID No. 140/2012) 2025.03.29 16:59:56 +0530 Geetam Singh & 2 Ors. vs. M/s Central Secretariat Club (Regd.) Page No. 30 of 40 under for the sake of convenience:
"34. From those decisions, the following principles broadly emerge:
....
(4) Even if no enquiry has been held by an employer or if the enquiry held by him is found to be defective, the Tribunal in order to satisfy itself about the legality and validity of the order, has to give an opportunity to the employer and employee to, adduce evidence before it. It is open to the employer to adduce evidence for the first time justifying his action; and it is open to the employee to adduce evidence contra.
(5) The effect of an employer not holding an enquiry is that the Tribunal would not have to consider only whether there was a prima facie case. On the other hand, the issue about the, merits of the impugned order of dismissal or discharge is at large before the Tribunal and the latter, on the evidence adduced before it, has to decide for itself whether the misconduct alleged is proved. In such cases, the point about the exercise of managerial functions does not arise at all. A case of defective enquiry stands on the same footing as no enquiry.
(6) The tribunal gets jurisdiction to consider the evidence placed before it for the first time in justification of the action taken only if no enquiry has been held or after the enquiry conducted by an employer is found to be defective.
.....
37 ...... Therefore, the position is that even now the employer is entitled to adduce evidence for the first time before the Tribunal even if he had held no enquiry or the enquiry held by him is found to be defective.......
....
39. Having held that the right of the employer to adduce evidence continues even under the new section, it is needless to state that, when such evidence is adduced for the first time, it is the Tribunal which has to be satisfied on such evidence about the guilt or otherwise of the workman concerned. The law, as laid down by the Court that under such circumstances, the issue about the merits of impugned order of the dismissal or discharge is at large before the Tribunal and that it has to decide for itself whether the misconduct alleged is proved, continues to have full effect. In such a case as laid down by this Court, the exercise of managerial functions does not arise at all".
(Emphasis supplied)
80. The evidence, if any, so led by the management, has to be considered on the parameters of preponderance of probabilities as opposed to beyond reasonable doubt as is Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2025.03.29 17:00:06 +0530 LIR No. 2384/2016 (Old ID No. 140/2012) Geetam Singh & 2 Ors. vs. M/s Central Secretariat Club (Regd.) Page No. 31 of 40 required in criminal cases. In Rajender Singh v. State Bank of India, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 7386, it has been observed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that:
"It is also well settled that the standard of proof, required in criminal proceedings and those before the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal, are different. Before the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal, the standard of proof is not that the misconduct must be proved beyond reasonable doubt but whether on preponderance of probability, it could be concluded that the employee is guilty as charged."
(Emphasis supplied)
81. In the present case, the workman has testified in his evidence affidavit as to the termination letter being on fake charges, and during his cross-examination, he denied that he was not doing his duties as directed by the management despite several opportunities.
82. It needs to be borne in mind that it is not in dispute that the workman had indeed received the letter of the management dated 01.08.2011 on 02.08.2011 i.e. Ex WW1/M7 wherein he was, inter-alia, informed that he had violated the directions of the management vide which he had been given the duty of serving water in the bridge room and he had been asked to perform his duties appropriately, failing which disciplinary action could be initiated, as the workman has himself referred to the same in his statement of claim as Annexure A3 and also admitted as to having received the same in his cross- examination.
83. In his statement of claim, the workman has also relied upon the letter dated 09.08.2011 as a part of Annexure A3, issued Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.03.29 LIR No. 2384/2016 (Old ID No. 140/2012) 17:00:15 +0530 Geetam Singh & 2 Ors. vs. M/s Central Secretariat Club (Regd.) Page No. 32 of 40 by the management as per which despite directions given on 19.07.2011, and written directions given on 02.08.2011, the workman did not perform his duties and contravened such directions of the management, and he was again asked to perform his duties, which letter was put to the workman during his cross-examination as Ex WW1/M8. However, in his cross-examination, the workman neither admitted nor denied receipt of the letter dated 09.08.2011 i.e. Ex WW1/M8, but denied his signatures thereon.
84. However, with the workman having himself relied upon the said letter dated 09.08.2011 in his statement of claim as Annexure A3, his denial of the signatures on Ex WW1/M8 is inconsequential and the factum of the said letter dated 09.08.2011 having been so received by him remains proved.
85. Hence, with the receipt of the said letters by the workman not being in dispute, it stands proved that he was in fact made aware by the management that he had been given oral direction on 19.07.2011 and written directions on 02.08.2011 despite which he did not perform his duties and contravened such directions of the management, and he was again asked to perform his duties vide letter dated 09.08.2011.
86. In the present case, there is not even a single positive averment by the workman, either in his statement of claim, or even in his evidence, as to him having performed his duties of serving water subsequent to the letters/orders Ex WW1/M7 and Ex WW1/M8. Rather, in his cross-examination, the Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2025.03.29 LIR No. 2384/2016 (Old ID No. 140/2012) 17:00:23 +0530 Geetam Singh & 2 Ors. vs. M/s Central Secretariat Club (Regd.) Page No. 33 of 40 workman has testified that permanent employees did not help with the offering of water to guests and members of the club. As the workman was a permanent employee himself, this testimony itself proves that he did not comply with the directions of the management to serve the water despite the letters Ex WW1/M7 and Ex WW1/M8.
87. It is also pertinent to note here that the workman has merely relied on his self serving testimony as to permanent employees not helping with the offering of water to guests and members of the club. He has led no further evidence to prove the same. Even in his statement of claim, there is no mention of offering of water to members/guest being beyond the realm of duties of permanent employees of the management.
88. Though, in his statement of claim, the workman had stated as to having sent a reply on 11.08.2011 to the management after receipt of letters dated 01.08.2011 and 09.08.2011 wherein he had stated that permanent employees were not made to perform such duties, for reasons best known to him, the workman did not rely upon the same during his evidence and hence the reply cannot be looked into.
89. The workman did not even cross-examine any management witness as to the work of serving water being beyond the scope of work of permanent employees, and in the absence thereof, there is no admission by the management in this respect.
Digitally
signed by
POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.03.29
17:00:32
+0530
LIR No. 2384/2016 (Old ID No. 140/2012) Geetam Singh & 2 Ors. vs. M/s Central Secretariat Club (Regd.) Page No. 34 of 40
90. The workman Manphool has admitted in his cross- examination that he did not make any complaint against the management during his service tenure, but gave no explanation as to what prevented him from doing so, if he was indeed being given duties beyond his job description, which further renders it probable that it was infact no beyond the scope of his duties.
91. In view of aforesaid reasons and discussion, on a scale of preponderance of probabilities, the factum of serving water being beyond the scope of permanent employees remains unproved.
92. Thus, in the present case, with the issuance of repeated directions to the workman Manphool by the management to serve water in Bridge room having been proved, and there being no evidence on record to prove that the workman Manphool had performed such duties subsequent to 19.07.2011, the non compliance of orders/directions of the management by the workman Manphool and consequently his misconduct stands proved from the evidence on record on a scale of preponderance of probabilities.
93. At this stage, it is also noted that the management has failed to lead any credit worthy evidence to prove any incident of misbehaviour attributed to the workman Manphool as even the averments in the notice/ letter Ex WW1/M9 as to misbehviour with the members are vague with no date or period or even any specific incident having been mentioned Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
LIR No. 2384/2016 (Old ID No. 140/2012) 2025.03.29 17:00:41 +0530 Geetam Singh & 2 Ors. vs. M/s Central Secretariat Club (Regd.) Page No. 35 of 40 nor the management has disclosed what behaviour has been construed to be misbehaviour nor have they disclosed qua which member, the same was committed nor any specific misbehaviour or date (s) of misbehaviour has been disclosed in the written statement either.
94. Though the management has relied upon the testimonies of MW3 and MW4 who have relied upon the complaints Ex MW3/1 to Ex MW3/6 as well as Mark A, the complaint Mark A has remained unproved as its original was never produced by the management. In as far as the complaints, Ex MW3/1 to Ex MW3/6 are concerned, it is duly noted that the same pertain to incidents dated 31.05.2011 and 16.07.2011. However, with the nature/date of misbehaviour not having been elucidated in the termination letter Ex.WW1/M9 nor having been averred in the written statement, the complaints by themselves are not sufficient to prove the purported misbeviour by the workman Manphool even more so, when he these complaints were never even put to the workman during his cross-examination.
95. Hence, it is held that from the evidence on record, the misconduct by the workman Manphool i.e. non compliance of orders/ directions of the management by him, stands proved, whereas the management has not been able to prove the misconduct on account of misbehviour.
96. In as far as the quantum of the punishment is concerned, it is noted that in view of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
LIR No. 2384/2016 (Old ID No. 140/2012) 2025.03.29 17:00:52 +0530 Geetam Singh & 2 Ors. vs. M/s Central Secretariat Club (Regd.) Page No. 36 of 40 Act, 1947, even where the workman is guilty of misconduct, the Court is empowered to alter the punishment imposed by the employer. Strength for this interpretation is drawn from the judgment in The Workmen of M/s Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. The Management and Others (1973) 1 SCC 813, wherein it has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that:
"Another change that has been effected by Section 11A is the power conferred on a Tribunal to alter the punishment imposed by an employer. If the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the misconduct is established, either by the domestic enquiry accented by it or by the evidence adduced before it for the first time, the Tribunal originally had no power to interfere with the punishment imposed by the management. Once the misconduct is proved, the Tribunal had to sustain the order of punishment unless it was harsh indicating victimisation. Under section 11A, though the Tribunal may hold that the misconduct is proved, nevertheless it may be of the opinion that the order of discharge or dismissal for the said misconduct is not justified. In other words, the Tribunal may hold that the proved misconduct does not merit punishment by way of discharge or dismissal. It can, under such circumstances, award to the workman any lesser punishment instead. The power to interfere with the punishment and alter the same has been now conferred on the Tribunal by section 11 A."
(Emphasis supplied)
97. However, such powers need to be exercised judicially. Reference is made here to the judgment in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v N.B. Narawade, [2005(3) SCC 134] (also cited in M/S. L&T Komatsu Ltd vs N. Udayakumar, AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 1752), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court noted as under:
"It is no doubt true that after introduction of Section 11-A in the Industrial Disputes Act, certain amount of discretion is vested with the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal in interfering with the quantum of punishment awarded by the management where the workman concerned is found guilty of misconduct. The said area of discretion has been very well defined by the various judgments Digitally signed by POOJA AGGARWAL POOJA AGGARWAL Date:
2025.03.29 LIR No. 2384/2016 (Old ID No. 140/2012) 17:01:06 +0530 Geetam Singh & 2 Ors. vs. M/s Central Secretariat Club (Regd.) Page No. 37 of 40 of this Court referred to hereinabove and it is certainly not unlimited as has been observed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The discretion which can be exercised under Section 11- A is available only on the existence of certain factors like punishment being disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct so as to disturb the conscience of the court, or the existence of any mitigating circumstances which require the reduction of the sentence, or the past conduct of the workman which may persuade the Labour Court to reduce the punishment. In the absence of any such factor existing, the Labour Court cannot by way of sympathy alone exercise the power under Section 11-A of the Act and reduce the punishment."
(Emphasis supplied)
98. In the present case, the factum of misconduct i.e. non performance of duties as per directions of the management has been proved. The workman Manphool has failed to bring on record, any factor to demonstrate that the punishment imposed by the employer/ management is disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct nor has he brought on record any mitigating circumstances which require the reduction of the punishment. The workman has failed to demonstrate, how insubordination by refusal to discharge duties, warrants any lenient view to be taken even more so when insubordination results in undermining of the authority of the management and disrupting the discipline of the institution.
99. In these circumstances, the punishment as imposed by the management cannot be reduced by this court only on the ground of sympathy even more so as this is not a forum where benevolence can be doled out to workmen found to be guilty of misconduct.
100.Hence, in the totality of the facts of the present case, it is held Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.03.29 17:01:15 LIR No. 2384/2016 (Old ID No. 140/2012) +0530 Geetam Singh & 2 Ors. vs. M/s Central Secretariat Club (Regd.) Page No. 38 of 40 that the workman Manphool is guilty of misconduct and his punishment of removal from service does not warrant any modification.
101.It is also pertinent to discuss here that the workman Manphool had also raised the ground as to his termination of his services being bad, as he was not given any notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation as required under Section 25F (a) and (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, the workman is not entitled to grant of any relief even on this account, since, as also discussed earlier, by virtue of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, retrenchment means termination of services of a workman for any reason, otherwise than as a punishment by way of disciplinary action with certain exceptions as enumerated in Section 2(oo)(a), (b), (bb) and (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act. As the case of workman Manphool is in respect of termination of services as a punishment by way of disciplinary action, hence, Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act is not attracted.
102.Further, in view of the proven misconduct of the workman Manphool, the allegations against him cannot be said to be arbitrary and hence the termination of his services cannot be set aside or modified on this ground.
Decision
103.In view of the aforesaid reasons and discussions, the reference as received is answered as under:
"The services of Sh. Geetam Singh S/o Sh Kundan Digitally signed by POOJA AGGARWAL POOJA AGGARWAL Date:
2025.03.29 LIR No. 2384/2016 (Old ID No. 140/2012) 17:01:25 +0530 Geetam Singh & 2 Ors. vs. M/s Central Secretariat Club (Regd.) Page No. 39 of 40 Lal and Sh. Lalta Prasad S/o. Sh Bajrangi Yadav have been terminated illegally by the management; and they are held entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and consequential benefits. The management is directed to re-instate the workmen Sh. Geetam Singh and Sh Lalta Prasad with full back wages and consequential benefits w.e.f. 01.07.2011. It is further held that there is no illegality or unjustifiability in the termination of the workman Manphool S/o Sh Prahlad Singh by the management, and no directions are warranted qua the same"
104.Copy of Award be uploaded on the website of RADC and be also sent to the concerned department through proper channels as per rules.
105.File be consigned to the record room after necessary compliance.
Digitally
Announced in the Open Court
signed by
POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
today i.e. 29th March 2025 AGGARWAL Date:
2025.03.29
17:01:37
+0530
(POOJA AGGARWAL)
Presiding Officer Labour Court-01
Rouse Avenue District Courts
New Delhi (sa)
LIR No. 2384/2016 (Old ID No. 140/2012) Geetam Singh & 2 Ors. vs. M/s Central Secretariat Club (Regd.) Page No. 40 of 40