Delhi District Court
Bharat Bhushan vs M/S Infomax Management Services Pvt. ... on 30 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF Dr. SURENDER MOHIT SINGH
PRESIDING OFFICER: LABOUR COURT-08
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS: NEW DELHI
LIR No. 1531/21
CNR No. DLCT13-003025-2021
In the matter of:
Shri Bharat Bhushan
S/o Sh. Bhagwan Dass,
R/o B-32, Block-A-3,
Utsav Vihar, Karala,
New Delhi-110081
... Workman
Versus
1. M/S Infomax Management Service (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Sh. Sanjeev Sarin, Director,
4-E/16-17, 3rd floor, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi-110055
2. M/S Digicom Management System Pvt. Ltd.,
Sh. Sanjeev Sarin, Director,
4-E/16-17, 3rd floor, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi-110055
...Managements
Date of Institution : 30.09.2021
Date of Award : 30.05.2025
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, Labour
Department, GNCT of Delhi, Employment Exchange Building,
PUSA , New Delhi setting out following dispute for adjudication
by the Court:
"Whether the services of workman Sh. Bharat
Bhushan S/o Sh. Bhagwan Dass, aged 43
years, have been terminated illegally and/or
unjustifiably by the management; and if so, to
LIR 1531/21 BHARAT BHUSHAN VS. M/S INFOMAX MANAGEMENT SERVICE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.
1/16
what relief is he entitled and what directions
are necessary in this respect?"
2. The present industrial dispute arises out of the alleged
illegal termination of the services of the claimant by the
managements. The claimant claims that he worked in the post of
"Field Executive" since 2011 with the management no.1 i.e. M/s
Infomax Mnagement Service (India) Pvt. Ltd and management
no.2 i.e. M/s Digicom Management System Pvt. Ltd. under Mr.
Sanjeev Sarin (common director of both managements), and no
appointment letter, minimum wages, ESI/PF slips, or legal
benefits were provided to him. He also claims that since
01.02.2015, his name was shown only in management no.2. He
also claims that his last drawn wages was Rs.19000/- p.m. He
claims that his services were illegally terminated on 18.02.2020
without notice, compensation or enquiry violating section 25F of
Industrial Disputes Act. He further alleged that he filed complaint
dated 29.07.2020 in the Labour Department against the
managements and also served demand notice dated 20.11.2020
through post to both the managements, however, the same was
not complied by the managements. He also alleged that he filed
claim before Conciliation Officer but matter was not resolved.
3. It is also submitted that workman being unemployed
since the date of termination of service without any rhyme and
reason and without any domestic enquiry is facing hardships and
is entitled to be reinstated with continuity of service and other
consequential benefits including full back wages.
4. Management no.1 i.e. M/s Infomax Management
Service (India) Pvt. Ltd has filed written statement contesting the
LIR 1531/21 BHARAT BHUSHAN VS. M/S INFOMAX MANAGEMENT SERVICE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.
2/16
claim by disputing employer-employee relationship. It is prayed
that present claim is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
5. Management no.2 i.e. M/S Digicom Management
Systems Pvt. Ltd. has filed written statement and averred that
management never terminated the services of the workman rather
the workman had himself tendered his resignation on 31.01.2020
out of his own free will and volition.
6. After completion of pleadings, on 25.08.2022
following issues were settled:
(i) Whether services of workman Sh. Bharat Bushan,
s/o Sh. Bhagwan Dass, age- 43 years have been
terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the
management (s) on 18.02.2020? OPW
(ii) Whether statement of claim against respondent no.1
is liable to be dismissed in the absence of employer- employee relation? OPM-1
(iii) Whether services of workman were never terminated by respondent no.2 rather workman himself tendered resignation out of his own volition and free will on 31.01.2020? OPM-2
(iv) Relief
7. Claimant/Shri Bharat Bhushan has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.WW1/A and relying upon following documents:
Identification Mark Description
Ex.WW1/1 Office copy of demand notice
addressed to management.
LIR 1531/21 BHARAT BHUSHAN VS. M/S INFOMAX MANAGEMENT SERVICE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.
3/16
Ex.WW1/2 Original postal receipt w.r.t
demand notice dated
20.10.2020.
Ex.WW1/3 Office copy of statement of
claim filed before Assistant
Labour Commissioner, PUSA,
New Delhi.
Ex.WW1/4 (four pages) Office copy of rejoinder filed
before Conciliation Officer,
PUSA, New Delhi.
Ex.WW1/5 Office copy of complaint dated
29.07.2020 made to Assistant
Labour Commissioner, Pusa,
New Delhi.
Mark A Photocopy of complaint dated
18.02.2020 made to SHO PS
Paharganj.
Mark B Photocopy of authorization
letter dated 01.06.2012, given
by management no.1 to city
bank, gurgaon.
8. WW1 was cross-examined at length by AR for management. Relevant extract of cross-examination of WW1 are as under:
"I am not completely aware about the statement of claim filed before this hon'ble court. I am not aware about the contents of my evidence affidavit Ex.WW1/A.... I have LIR 1531/21 BHARAT BHUSHAN VS. M/S INFOMAX MANAGEMENT SERVICE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.4/16
filed the present industrial disputes to claim my dues in full and final along with back wages.... I have worked for the management only upto 21.01.2020, After 21.01.2020, I could not went to my duties as I was not keeping good health".
9. Thereafter, on 26.08.2023, WE stands closed and matter was listed for ME.
10. Management no.1 has not led any evidence despite giving ample opportunities.
11. Management no.2 examined Shri Nishikesh Ranjan Sinha as MW1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.MW1/A and relying upon following documents:
Identification Mark Description Ex.WW1/M1 (colly two Letter dated 09.11.2020 along pages). with postal receipt. Ex.WW1/M2 Letter dated 31.01.2020.
12. MW1 was cross-examined at length by AR for workman. Relevant extract of cross-examination of MW1 are as under:
"It is correct that the workman was working as a field executive.... I am working in the management no.2.... The workman had worked with the management till 18.02.2020.... Vol. The workman had worked with the management till 31.01.2020.... Vol. The workman has resigned from his services on 31.01.2020.... It is correct that the management has not paid the gratuity or compensation to the workman.... At present, the management is not ready to take the workman back on duty.... Vol. The workman himself resigned from the services.... It is correct that the workman was working with the management no.2 since 01.02.2015".
LIR 1531/21 BHARAT BHUSHAN VS. M/S INFOMAX MANAGEMENT SERVICE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.
5/1613. Thereafter on 03.01.2025, ME was closed and matter was listed for final arguments.
14. Final arguments heard.
15. I have considered the submissions of all the parties and perused the judicial record.
My issue wise findings are as under:-
Issue no.2- Whether statement of claim against respondent no.1 is liable to be dismissed in the absence of employer- employee relation? OPM-1
16. It is settled law that the provisions of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 per se are not applicable in the industrial adjudications. The general principles of it are, however, applicable and the principles of natural justice are complied with.
17. It is well settled principle of law that a person who sets up a plea of existence of employer-employee relation is required to adduce cogent evidence for discharging the burden as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Workmen of Nilgiri Co-operative Marketing Society Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 514'. Paras 47 to 49 of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court being relevant are extracted below:
"47. It is a well-settled principle of law that the person who sets up a plea of existence of relationship of employer and employee, the burden would be upon him.
48. In N.C. John Vs. Secy, Thodupuzha Taluk Shop and Commercial Establishment Workers' Union, the Kerala High Court held:
LIR 1531/21 BHARAT BHUSHAN VS. M/S INFOMAX MANAGEMENT SERVICE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.6/16
The burden of proof being on the workmen to establish the employer-employee relationship an adverse inference cannot be drawn against the employer that if he were to produce books of accounts they would have proved employer-employee relationship.
49. In Swapan Das Gupta Vs. The First Labour Court of West Bengal it has been held:
Where a person asserts that he was a workmen of the Company, and it is denied by the Company, it is for him to prove the fact. It is not for the Company to prove that he was not an employee of the Company but of some other person."
18. Scope and ambit of Section 2(oo), Section 25B and Section 25F of I.D Act was considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in para 6 of judgment in Surendernagar District Panchayat Vs. Dahyabhai Amarsinh (2005) 8 SCC 750 for observing that workman claiming protection under Section 25F of I.D. Act has to prove (i) existence of employer-employee relation; (ii) employment as workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of I.D. Act; (iii) establishment being an industry under Section 2(j) of I.D. Act AND (iv) continuous service under the employer as defined under Section 25B of I.D. Act. Existence of Employer-Employee Relationship
19. The contention of management no.1 is that no employer-employee relationship existed between claimant and management no.1, hence, claimant is not entitled to seek any relief against it.
20. The law relating to existence of employer-employee LIR 1531/21 BHARAT BHUSHAN VS. M/S INFOMAX MANAGEMENT SERVICE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.
7/16relationship is well explained by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Airport Authority of India Vs. A.S. Yadav and Ors., W.P. (C) 5168/2005 and CM No.47971/2029 wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has made reference to paragraphs 37 to 39 of the decision in International Airport Authority of India V. International Cargo Workers' Union and Another, (2009) 13 SCC 374 which reads as under :-
"37. The industrial adjudicator can grant the relief sought if it finds that contract between the principal employer and the contractor is sham, nominal and merely a camouflage to deny employment benefits to the employer and that there is in fact a direct employment, by applying tests like: who pays the salary; who has the power to remove/dismiss from service or initiate disciplinary action; who has direction and employee the way in which the work should be done, in short, who has direction and control over the employee. But where there is no notification under Section 10 of the CLRA Act and where it is not proved in the industrial adjudication that the contract was a sham/nominal and camouflage, then the question of directing the principal employer to absorb or regularize the services of the contract labour does not arise.
38. The tests that are applies to find out whether a person is an employee or an independent contractor may not automatically apply in finding out whether the contract labour agreement is a sham, nominal and is a mere camouflage. For example, if the LIR 1531/21 BHARAT BHUSHAN VS. M/S INFOMAX MANAGEMENT SERVICE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.8/16
contract is for supply of labour, necessarily, the labour supplied by the contractor will work under the directions, supervision and control of the principal employer, if the salary is paid by a contractor, if the right to regulate the employment is with the contractor and the ultimate supervision and control lies with the contractor.
39. The principal employer only controls and directs the work to be done by a contract labour, when such labour is assigned/allotted/allotted/sent to him. But it is the contractor as employer, who choose whether the worker is to be assigned/allotted to the principal employer or used otherwise. In short, worker being the employee of the contractor, the ultimate supervision and control lies with the contractor as he decides where the employee will work and how long he will work and subject to what conditions. Only when the contractor assigns/sends the worker to work under the principal employer, the worker works under the supervision and control of the principal employer but that is secondary control. The primary control is with the contractor."
21. Relying upon Airport Authority of India case (Supra), in a dispute of existence of employer-employee relationship, the court adjudicating the dispute is required to examine as to (1) who pays salary to the workman, (2) who possesses the power to initiate disciplinary action against him and (3) whether the alleged employer has any control and supervision over the claimant/workman.
LIR 1531/21 BHARAT BHUSHAN VS. M/S INFOMAX MANAGEMENT SERVICE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.
9/1622. Further, in Balwant Rai Saluja and Another Vs. Air India Limited and Others (2014 (9) SCC 407) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held as under:-
"65. Thus, it can be concluded that the relevant factors to be taken into consideration to establish an employer- employee relationship would include, inter alia:"
"(i) who appoints the workers; (ii) who pays the salary/remuneration; (iii) who has the authority to dismiss; (iv) who can take disciplinary action; (v) whether there is continuity of service;
and (vi) extent of control and supervision i.e. whether there exists complete control and supervision."
23. In order to prove relationship between claimant and management no.1, the claimant relied upon Mark B i.e. authorization letter dated 01.06.2012 showing that claimant acted on behalf of management no.1. Claimant also relied upon Ex.WW1/1 (demand notice), Ex.WW1/2 (postal receipts), Ex.WW1/3 (claim filed before the conciliation officer), Ex.WW1/4 (copy of rejoinder filed before conciliation officer) and Ex.WW1/5 (copy of complaint to Asst. Labour Commssioner dt. 29.07.2020).
24. Management no.1 has not disputed the authorization letter (Mark B) dated 01.06.2012 showing that the claimant acted on behalf of management no.1.
25. Management no.1 has also not led any evidence to disprove the authorization letter (Mark B) dated 01.06.2012. Hence, the said document remains unrebutted.
LIR 1531/21 BHARAT BHUSHAN VS. M/S INFOMAX MANAGEMENT SERVICE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.
10/1626. As discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that employer-employee relationship existed between management no.1 and workman, however, this relationship pertains for the period before 01.02.2015 as workman himself admitted in his statement of claim that his name was shown/shifted in management no.2 i.e. M/S Digicom Management Systems Pvt. Ltd w.e.f 01.02.2015 onwards which subsequently terminated his services.
27. Accordingly, this issue is decided against management no.1 and in favour of the claimant.
Issue no.3- Whether services of workman were never terminated by respondent no.2 rather workman himself tendered resignation out of his own volition and free will on 31.01.2020? OPM-2
28. The claimant alleged that management no.2 has illegally terminated his services on 18.02.2020 violating the provisions of section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act while management no.2 contended that the workman himself tendered resignation out of his own volition and free will on 31.01.2020.
29. Management no.2 alleged that the workman was employed on 01.02.2015 vide Ex.MW1/WW1 i.e. appointment letter and he voluntarily resigned on 31.01.2020 vide Ex.WW1/M2. He also relied upon attendance record Ex.MW1/W2 which does not show workman's name after January, 2020.
30. In order to prove resignation of workman, management no.2 heavily relied upon Ex.WW1/M2 i.e. LIR 1531/21 BHARAT BHUSHAN VS. M/S INFOMAX MANAGEMENT SERVICE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.
11/16resignation letter. However, during cross-examination, the claimant/WW1 disputed the alleged resignation letter and also denied signature at point A. On perusal of Ex.WW1/M2, it reveals that the said document is accepted by one HR Manager on behalf of management, however, management has neither examined the said HR manager nor produced any resignation acceptance record to prove authenticity and genuineness of Ex.WW1/M2.
31. As discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that management has failed to prove that workman has voluntarily resigned on 31.01.2020.
32. Accordingly, this issue is decided against management no.2 and in favour of the workman.
Issue no.1- Whether services of workman Sh. Bharat Bushan, s/o Sh. Bhagwan Dass, age- 43 years have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management on 18.02.2020? OPW
33. Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provides conditions precedent to retrenchment to workman as under:
25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.
34. "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 LIR 1531/21 BHARAT BHUSHAN VS. M/S INFOMAX MANAGEMENT SERVICE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.
12/16such 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
(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."
35. 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.
36. 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 LIR 1531/21 BHARAT BHUSHAN VS. M/S INFOMAX MANAGEMENT SERVICE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.13/16
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 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."
37. In view of above settled position of law, coming to LIR 1531/21 BHARAT BHUSHAN VS. M/S INFOMAX MANAGEMENT SERVICE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.
14/16the facts of the present case. It is a matter of record that no warning letter, memo or show cause notice was ever issued to the workman during his employment.
38. Moreover, the management no.2 neither conducted any domestic enquiry nor produced any domestic enquiry report on record to substantiate the allegations.
39. The complaint submitted to SHO (Mark A, dated 18.02.2020) substantiate the workman's claim regarding the unlawful termination of his services. Additionally, management no.2 has failed to establish the authenticity of the alleged resignation letter (Ex.WW1/M2) which further corroborate the workman's claim. Moreover, management no.2's admission of non-payment of gratuity/compensation also strengthen the workman's case.
40. The evidences on record clearly shows that no notice/ wages in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation was given to the workman prior to termination of his services by management no.2.
41. As discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that the management no.2 had violated the provision of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act and consequently, illegally terminated the services of the workman. Accordingly, this issue is also decided against the management no.2 and in favour of workman.
42. 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 LIR 1531/21 BHARAT BHUSHAN VS. M/S INFOMAX MANAGEMENT SERVICE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.
15/16as 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.
Relief:-
43. Accordingly, 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.19,000/-, a lump sum amount of Rs.6,00,000/- is awarded to workman as compensation.
44. Amount of compensation be paid to claimant within one month from the date of award failing which management no.2 shall also pay interest @ 6% per annum on aforesaid amount from the date of award till the date of realization.
45. Workman is not entitled to any relief against management no.1 as he failed to prove that management no.1 and 2 are same entity or they have functional integrities.
46. Reference stands answered in aforesaid terms
47. Copy of Award be sent to Joint Labour Commissioner, Central District, Labour Department, GNCT of Delhi, Employment Exchange Building, PUSA, New Delhi for publication.
48. Judicial file be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30.05.2025. SURENDER Digitally signed by SURENDER MOHIT MOHIT SINGH Date: 2025.05.30 SINGH 20:02:22 +0530 (Dr. Surender Mohit Singh) District Judge,POLC-VIII RADC/New Delhi LIR 1531/21 BHARAT BHUSHAN VS. M/S INFOMAX MANAGEMENT SERVICE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.
16/16