Delhi District Court
Daljeet Bhardawaj vs M/S Hukumat Rai And Sons on 29 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF Dr. SURENDER MOHIT SINGH
PRESIDING OFFICER: LABOUR COURT-08
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS: NEW DELHI
LIR No. 1519/22
CNR No. DLCT13-003980-2022
In the matter of:
Shri Daljeet Bhardwaj,
S/o Sh. Babu Ram,
R/o E-1/626, Gali no.20, Pusta 4,
Sonia Vihar, Delhi-110094
Through:
The Audhyogik Kamgar Vikas Union
D-2/579, Gali no.6, Soniya Vihar,
Third Pusta Delhi-110094
... Workman
Versus
1. M/s Hukumat Rai and Sons,
Through its director-
Mr. Rajan Badhva,
5228/2, G.B Road,
Ajmeri Gate, Delhi-110006.
...Management
Date of Institution : 18.08.2022
Date of Award : 29.04.2025
AWAR D
1. Reference under Section 10(1)(c) read with Section
12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been received from
Deputy Labour Commissioner, Central District, Employment
Exchange Building, PUSA Campus New Delhi setting out
following dispute for adjudication by the Court:
"Whether the services of Shri Daljeet
Bhardwaj, S/o Shri Babu Ram, aged about
LIR 1519/22 DALJEET BHARDWAJ VS. M/S HUKUMAT RAI & SONS 1/17
59 years have been terminated illegally
and/or unjustifiably by the management; and
if so, to what relief is he entitled and what
directions are necessary in this respect?"
2. As per the statement of the claim, it is averred by
claimant/Shri Daljeet Bhardwaj that he was appointed at the post
of "Skilled Labour/Kushal Karamchari" since 10.10.1980 by
management. It is averred that his last drawn monthly salary was
Rs.9500/-. It is further averred that he had been discharging his
duties with complete devotion without complaint during his
service tenure. It is also averred that management had not
provided legal facilities like appointment letter, leave book, pay
slip, over time wages, bonus etc. to the workman.
3. It is further averred that despite repeated demand for
the said legal facilities, management did not provide the same. It
is further averred that management has not paid his earned wages
for the period 01.10.2020 to 15.12.2020 and when he raised
demand for the same, then, management became annoyed and
without any reason, and without paying the earned wages for the
period 01.10.2020 to 15.12.2020, and without conducting
domestic enquiry and payment of notice pay/service
compensation illegally terminated his services. It is averred that
management no.2 has violated the provisions of Section 25 (F)
and (G) of Industrial Disputes Act.
4. It is further averred that thereafter, on 12.01.2021, he
sent a demand notice to the management for seeking
reinstatement which was duly served but the same was not
replied. It is further averred that on 03.03.2022, he filed
LIR 1519/22 DALJEET BHARDWAJ VS. M/S HUKUMAT RAI & SONS 2/17
statement of claim before Conciliation Officer regarding his
illegal termination and non-payment of said wages but the
management not reinstated him and merely handed over a cheque
no.000254 of Rs.15000/- dated 08.12.2021 to the workman in
respect of earned wages. Matter could not be settled there and
was referred for adjudication before the Labour Court. It is also
averred that he is currently unemployed and facing hardships and
prayed to be reinstated with continuity of service and other
consequential benefits including full back wages.
5. Management i.e. M/S Hukumat Rai and Sons filed
written statement contesting the claim inter alia stating that
management firm was closed in 2018 and new firm in the name
of Guruji Traders was started wherein workman was given
employment. It is further averred that management never
terminated the services of the workman rather workman himself
willfully left the job without any information or notice. It is
further averred that management had paid Rs15000/- to the
workman through cheque no.000254 dated 08.12.2021 at the
time of mediation before Labour Inspector and now nothing
remains against the workman. It is further averred that
management gave opportunity to the workman to join back the
services before Labour Inspector which can be substantiated vide
order dated 10.08.2021 and 08.12.2021 passed by Labour
Inspector, Pusa Road, New Delhi.
6. Thereafter, workman filed rejoinder wherein denied
the averments made in WS and accordingly, pleadings were
completed and following issues were settled on 14.07.2023:
LIR 1519/22 DALJEET BHARDWAJ VS. M/S HUKUMAT RAI & SONS 3/17
1. Whether services of workman Shri Daljeet
Bhardwaj S/o Sh. Babu Ram have been terminated
illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management?
.... OPW
2. Whether the services of the claimant were never
terminated by management and workman having
left the job without prior intimation did not join duty
despite repeated requests? OPM
3. Relief.
7. Shri Daljeet Bhardwaj examined himself as WW1 and
tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.WW1/A and relied
upon following documents:
(a) Office copy of demand notice dated 12.01.2021-
Ex.WW1/1.
(b) Original postal receipts- Ex.WW1/2.
(c) Original returned speed post envelope- Ex.WW1/3.
(d) Office copy of statement of claim filed before
Conciliation Officer- Ex.WW1/4.
(e) Photocopy of cheque bearing no.000254 dated
08.12.2021 for a sum of Rs.15000/- being not objected-
Ex. WW1/5.
(f) Original report dated 16.12.2021 of Labour Inspector-
Ex.WW1/6.
8. Workman was cross-examined at length by AR for
both the management. Relevant extract of his cross-examination
is as under:
"I joined the management on 10.10.1980. I
must be around 16 years of age at that time. I
was not given any appointment letter and
other than the documents already exhibited, I
do not have any document in support of my
claim. I never made any demand with the
LIR 1519/22 DALJEET BHARDWAJ VS. M/S HUKUMAT RAI & SONS 4/17
management to issue an appointment letter to
me.
I was never offered by the
management to join the duties during the
course of conciliation proceedings.
At this stage, witness is
confronted with the order sheet dated
08.12.2021 before the Labour Inspector
where it has been mentioned that the
management made an offer to the claimant to
join the duties and claimant refused to accept
the said offer and the said order is
Ex.WW1/M1.
I do not know as to whether the
management closed down its business in
2018 or not. My wages were used to be paid
via cash mode. At the time of my joining
around 10 employees were already employed
with the management and at the time of my
termination besides myself two more
employees were working there".
9. Thereafter, on 21.08.2024, WE was closed and matter
was listed for ME.
10. Management no.1 has examined Shri Rajan Wadhwa
as MW1 on behalf of management no.1 who tendered his
evidence by way of affidavit Ex.MW1/A and relied upon
following documents:
1. Ex.MW1/1 (colly) are the certified copies of the
orders of the Labour Inspector.
11. MW1 was cross-examined at length by AR for
workman. Relevant extract of his cross-examination is as under:
"The workman Sh. Daljeet
Bhardwaj was working with the management
since 1997/98. The management was started
in the year 1983. The management was
registered under Sales Tax. Only trade license
LIR 1519/22 DALJEET BHARDWAJ VS. M/S HUKUMAT RAI & SONS 5/17
was obtained. 4-5 workers were working in
the year 1983. The workman was working as
a helper with the management. I cannot say
whether any appointment letter was issued to
the workman or not. Salary used to paid on
vouchers and attendance register. Leaves for
1 month used to be paid to the workman. The
attendance of the workman was marked upto
December, 2020. The management paid the
last salary to the workman for the month of
December, 2020. I do not remember whether
the said salary was given in December or in
the subsequent months. The last drawn salary
of the workman was Rs.14-15,000 p.m in the
year 2020.
The management maintained only
attendance register in respect of its
employees. The management was closed
down in the year 2017-2018. No intimation
for closure of management was sent to any
Govt. Dept. and no closure certificate has
been obtained by the management. The
workman was appointed with M/S Guruji
Traders with continuity. No full and final was
made in respect of closure of M/S Hukumat
Rai & Sons. I do not remember the exact date
on which the workman himself left the job.
The management neither sent any letter to the
workman calling him to join his services nor
made any telephonic call as the workman as
the workman was not having the contact
number. Vol. The management sent a letter in
January, 2021 but that was returned back. I
have not filed any letter sent to the workman
on judicial record. No information or
intimation was also sent to any Labour
Authority about the leaving of job by the
workman. I do not remember the exact date
of last working day of the workman. Vol. It
was in first week of December. The name of
the workman was struck off from the record
of the management in the January-February,
LIR 1519/22 DALJEET BHARDWAJ VS. M/S HUKUMAT RAI & SONS 6/17
2021. Vol. After receiving the letter from the
lawyer of workman. No full and final
settlement was made at the time of striking of
the name of the workman or no intimation of
striking of the name of the workman was sent
to any Labour Authorities.
It is correct that the management
received the demand notice sent by the
workman. No reply was sent to the workman
of the demand notice. The salary day of the
management is 7th day of every month. It is
correct that the salary of the workman
Rs.15000 was paid before labour inspector.
I have knowledge about the filing of
the claim by the workman before the
Conciliation Officer. I have never appeared
before the Conciliation Officer. I have not
received any notice from the Conciliation
Officer. The address mentioned at Ex.WW1/4 at
Point A bears the correct address of the
management. It is correct that all the
correspondence is received at this address.
No memo or show cause was issued
against the workman for his absence. No address
was ever taken by the management of its
employees. It is correct that no inquiry or show
cause was issued against the workman after
receiving the demand notice. No domestic
inquiry was conducted against the workman for
his absence".
12. Thereafter, management evidence was closed and
matter was listed for final arguments.
13. Final arguments heard.
14. I have considered the submissions of all the parties
and perused the judicial record.
15. During the arguments, AR for the management
strongly contended that the workman had refused to join back
duties despite the management's offer before the Labour
LIR 1519/22 DALJEET BHARDWAJ VS. M/S HUKUMAT RAI & SONS 7/17
Inspector, thereby the workman is not entitled to the relief
sought.
16. Per contra, the AR for the workman argued that since
the workman's AR was absent during the proceedings before
Labour Inspector and the workman, being a layman, did not fully
comprehend the proceedings, such proceedings should not be
considered.
17. Before addressing the merits of the case, it is
necessary to examine the validity of the reinstatement offer made
by management during the proceedings before Labour Inspector.
18. Upon perusal of the relevant records i.e Ex.MW1/1
(colly) dated 10.08.2021 and Ex.WW1/M1 dated 08.12.2021, it
is evidently clear that the management offered the workman
reinstatement in M/S Hukumat Rai and Sons, which the
workman refused. The proceedings further show that both the
workman and the proprietor of the management (Mr. Rajan
Wadhwa) were present and put their signatures in the
proceedings.
19. In view of above, I am of the opinion that the
contentions raised by AR for the workman that the proceedings
before Labour Inspector should not be considered due to the
absence of the AR for the workman is devoid of merits and is
accordingly rejected.
20. Further, the management's written statement alleged
that M/s Hukumat Rai and Sons seized operations in 2018 and a
new entity, M/S Guruji Traders was subsequently established by
the proprietor. Perusal of the proceedings before Labour
Inspector (Ex.MW1/1 and Ex.WW1/M1) reveals that the
LIR 1519/22 DALJEET BHARDWAJ VS. M/S HUKUMAT RAI & SONS 8/17
management offered reinstatement in M/S Hukumat Rai and
Sons which had already been closed in 2018.
21. As discussed above, I am of the considered opinion
that the offer extended by management was not legally valid as it
pertains to a non-operational entity. Accordingly, the
management's submissions regarding the offer of reinstatement is
also devoid of merits and is hereby rejected.
Issuewise Findings:-
Issue no.2:-
Whether the services of the claimant were never
terminated by management and workman having left
the job without prior intimation did not join duty
despite repeated requests? OPM
22. It is settled position of law that abandonment of
service is the voluntarily relinquishment of ones service with the
intention not to resume the same and it is different from
absenteeism.
23. For abandonment to be established, there must be
clear evidence of the workman's intention to relinquish his
position which often demonstrated through prolonged absence
without valid justification.
24. Further abandonment has to be seen from facts and
circumstances of each case.
25. In M/s Fateh Chand Vs. Presiding Offcer, Labour
Court & Anr, W.P. (C) No.758/2007 the Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi held that :
"8.....It is also a settled legal position that
abandonment of service is different from
LIR 1519/22 DALJEET BHARDWAJ VS. M/S HUKUMAT RAI & SONS 9/17
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."
26. As held above, it is settled position of law that the burden of proving abandonment rest squarely on the employer. The employer must follow due process in terminating the employment of the workman for abandonment. The employer must ensure that he has given notice to the absentee workman to report back to work and he must provide opportunity to the workman to explain his absence from work. The employer should also conduct proper enquiry, if no response is received from the workman.
27. The management claims that the workman willfully left his job without prior notice and all dues were cleared vide cheque no.000254 dated 08.12.2021 Punjab and Singh Bank, Paharganj Branch, New Delhi before Labour Inspector.
LIR 1519/22 DALJEET BHARDWAJ VS. M/S HUKUMAT RAI & SONS 10/17 Management relied upon Ex.WW1/M1 to support its claim.
28. During the cross-examination, workman/WW1 admitted receiving of Rs.15000/- but clarified that his monthly salary was Rs.9500/- p.m and the said amount of Rs.15000/- covered only two months wages leaving balance of Rs.4000/- as outstanding. No suggestion was given by AR for the management that Rs.15000/- was paid as full and final settlement.
29. On perusal of Ex.WW1/M1, it reveals that the payment of Rs.15000/- was given towards pending salary and not a settlement.
30. Further during cross-examination, MW1 also admitted that the amount of Rs.15000/- was paid as salary before the labour inspector and no full and final settlement was made at the time of closure of M/S Hukumat Rai and Sons or when the workman's name was struck off from the records in January- February, 2022. MW1 also admitted that management received workman's demand notice (Ex.WW1/1) but never replied the same. MW1 also admitted that neither intimation regarding closure of management in 2017-2018 was sent to any govt. department nor any closure certificate was obtained.
31. MW1 also admitted that no communication was sent to the workman to resume duties. MW1 claimed that a letter was sent in January, 2021 but it was returned undelivered. No proof of such a letter is placed on record by the management.
32. MW1 also admitted that no memo, show cause notice was issued or inquiry was conducted by the management regarding the workman's absence.
LIR 1519/22 DALJEET BHARDWAJ VS. M/S HUKUMAT RAI & SONS 11/17
33. MW1 also admitted that no domestic enquiry was conducted by the management even after receiving the demand notice sent by the workman.
34. On the basis of above evidence on record, it is evidently clear that the management has failed to prove its defense.
35. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the management and in favour of workman.
Issue no.1- Whether services of workman Shri Daljeet Bhardwaj S/o Sh. Babu Ram have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management? .... OPW
36. Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provides conditions precedent to retrenchment to workman as under:
25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.
37. "No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until:
(a) The workman has been given one month 's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice.
(b) The workman has been
paid, at the time of retrenchment,
compensation which shall be
equivalent to fifteen days 'average pay or any part thereof in excess of six months; and LIR 1519/22 DALJEET BHARDWAJ VS. M/S HUKUMAT RAI & SONS 12/17
(c) Notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government [or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette."
38. Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act mandates that an employer must provide one months notice or wages in lieu of notice and compensation equivalent to 15 days' average pay for every completed year of service before retrenching an employee.
39. In Devinder Singh v. Municipal Council, Sanaur (2011 (6) SCC 584), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in paragraphs 19 to 21 as under:
"19. Section 25 couched in negative form. It imposes a restriction on the employer's right to retrench a workman and lays down that no workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less then one year under an employer shall be retrenched until he has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired or he has been paid wages for the period of notice and he has also been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months and notice in the prescribed manner has been served upon the appropriate Government or the authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by LIR 1519/22 DALJEET BHARDWAJ VS. M/S HUKUMAT RAI & SONS 13/17 notification in the Official Gazette.
20. This Court has repeatedly held that the provisions contained in Section 25F (a) and (b) are mandatory and termination of the service of a workman, which amounts to retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) without giving one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof and retrenchment compensation is null and void/illegal/inoperative--State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha AIR 1960 SC 610, Bombay Union of Journalists v. State of Bombay AIR 1964 SC 1617, State Bank of India v. N. Sundara Money (supra), Santosh Gupta v. State Bank of Patiala (1980) 3 SCC 340, Mohan Lal v. Bharat Electronics Ltd.(1981) 3 SCC 225, L. Robert D'Souza v. Southern Railway (supra), Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (1980) 4 SCC 443, Gammon India Ltd. v. Niranjan Dass (1984) 1 SCC 509, Gurmail Singh v. State of Punjab (1991) 1 SCC 189 and Pramod Jha v. State of Bihar (2003) 4 SCC 619.
21 In Anoop Sharma v. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division, Haryana (supra), the Court considered the effect of violation of Section 25F, referred to various precedents on the subject and held the termination of service of a workman without complying with the mandatory provisions contained in Section 25- F (a) and (b) should ordinarily result in his reinstatement."
LIR 1519/22 DALJEET BHARDWAJ VS. M/S HUKUMAT RAI & SONS 14/17
40. In Novartis India Limited v. State of West Bengal & Others (2009 (3) SCC 124), the Hon'ble Supreme Court also held that even if an employee is transferred or fails to join the new post, termination without conducting a proper inquiry is not permissible. In para no.14 and 16 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that:-
"14....., even after the direction went against the employees, respondents did not join their services at their transferred places. They might have committed a misconduct. Their services, however, were terminated without holding any domestic inquiry. Only a month's wages were paid. It is not in dispute that after passing of the orders of transfer till the orders of termination, no amount by way of salary or otherwise has been paid to them. No disciplinary proceeding was initiated. No subsistence allowance was also paid. 15 .......
16. When an employee does not join at his transferred place, he commits a misconduct. A disciplinary proceeding was, therefore, required to be initiated. The order of discharge is not a substitute for an order of punishment. If an employee is to be dismissed from services on the ground that he had committed a misconduct, he was entitled to an opportunity of hearing. Had such an opportunity of hearing been given to them, they could have shown that there were compelling reasons for their not joining at the transferred places. Even a minor punishment could have been granted. Appellant precipitated the situation LIR 1519/22 DALJEET BHARDWAJ VS. M/S HUKUMAT RAI & SONS 15/17 by passing a post haste order of termination of their service."
41. The evidence on record shows that no notice or wages in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation was given to the workman prior to the termination of his services by the management.
42. Accordingly, I am of the considered opinion that the management had violated the provision of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act and consequently, illegally terminated the services of the workman. Hence, this issue is also decided against the management and in favour of workman.
43. It is a well settled law that reinstatement with full back wages is not to be granted automatically in case of illegal termination and Labour Court can mould the relief by granting lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages as held in (i) Municipal Council Sujanpur Vs. Surinder Kumar 2006 LLR 662; (ii) Nehru Yuva Kendra Sanghathan Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2000 IV AD (Delhi) 709; (iii) Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Salvan Public School & Ors. W.P.(C) 5820 Dated 17.11.2014.
44. As discussed above, management M/S Hukumat Rai and Sons was already closed in 2018, therefore, reinstatement with back wages is hereby ruled out and I deem it appropriate to grant compensation to the workman instead of reinstatement with full back wages. Upon considering the length of service and last drawn wage of workman i.e. Rs.9,500/-, a lump sum amount of Rs.2,50,000/- is awarded to workman as compensation.
45. Amount of compensation be paid to the workman LIR 1519/22 DALJEET BHARDWAJ VS. M/S HUKUMAT RAI & SONS 16/17 within two months from the date of award failing which management shall also pay interest @ 6% per annum on aforesaid amount from the date of award till the date of realization.
46. Reference stands answered in aforesaid terms.
47. Copy of award be sent to Deputy Labour Commissioner, Central District, Employment Exchange Building, PUSA Campus, New Delhi for publication.
48. Judicial file be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
on 29.04.2025
Digitally signed by
SURENDER SURENDER MOHIT
MOHIT SINGH
Date: 2025.04.30
SINGH 16:31:53 +0530
(Dr. Surender Mohit Singh)
District Judge,POLC-VIII
RADC/New Delhi
LIR 1519/22 DALJEET BHARDWAJ VS. M/S HUKUMAT RAI & SONS 17/17