Delhi District Court
Ajay Jakhar vs M/S Insta Kart Services Pvt Ltd on 20 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. ARUN KUMAR GARG
PRESIDING OFFICER : LABOUR COURT-III
ROUSE AVENUE COURTS COMPLEX : NEW DELHI.
CNR No. DLCT13-004742-2025
Ref. No. F.25(98)R-48/SWD/Lab./201 dated 23.07.2025
LIR No. 626/2025
Sh. Ajay Jakhar S/o Sh. Ashwani Kumar,
Mobile No. 9716706287
R/o B-1/31A, Block B-1, Sewak Park,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059.
Through:
Sh. Vijay Kumar Tiwari (President),
All India General Mazdoor Trade Union
(Regd. No. 3025),170, Bal Mukund Khand,
Giri Nagar, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019
Mobile No. 9810483729
Ph. No. 011-26478703, 011-25938953
Email : [email protected] ..... Workman
VERSUS
1.M/s. Instakart Services Pvt. Ltd., Through its Director Mr. Kolla Prabhakar, Additional Director Mr. Satyam Choudhary, Address: WZ-152, Bal Udhyan Road, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059 Email ID: [email protected] Registered Office at Buildings Alyssa, Begonia & Clover, Embassy Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Bangalore, Devarabeesanahalli Village, Bengaluru, Karnataka-560103 Represented through:
Authorized Representative:
Sh. Bhabhajit Chandra Nandi S/o Sh. Bhupesh Chandra Nandi, Mobile No. 9971699032 Email ID: [email protected] LIR No. 626/2025 Ajay Jakhar Vs. M/s. Instakart Services Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.Award dated 20.02.2026 Page 1 of 25
2. M/s. G4S Secure Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., Through its Managing Director Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Mobile No. 9971056335 Sr. Vice President Mr. N.K. Gour Mobile No. 9717009066 Branch Head Mr. Panish Dadi, Mobile No. 9818399350 Address: C-16, Community Centre, Janakpuri, Behind Janak Cinema, New Delhi-110058.
Also at: Plot no. 47, Okhla Industrial Estate Phase-3, New Delhi-110020 Email ID: [email protected] [email protected] Represented through:
Authorized Representative Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Taku, Mobile No. 8527194270 Email ID: [email protected] ..... Managements Date of Institution of the case : 30.07.2025 Date on which Award is passed : 20.02.2026 AWARD
1. By this award, I will dispose off the present claim filed by Workman, pursuant to reference under Section 10(1)(C) & 12(5) of Industrial Disputes Act, received from the office of Deputy Labour Commissioner (South-West), Labour Department, Govt.
of NCT of Delhi vide order reference no. F.25(98)R-48/SWD/Lab./201 dated 23.07.2025, whereby, the following issue has been referred to this Court for adjudication:-
"Whether the services of Workman Sh. Ajay Jakhar S/o Sh. Ashwani Kumar (Aged - 39 Years), Mobile No. 9716706287, Aadhar Card No. 727243561619 have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the Management; if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"LIR No. 626/2025
Ajay Jakhar Vs. M/s. Instakart Services Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.
Award dated 20.02.2026 Page 2 of 252. The claim was initially filed by the Workman before this Court on 24.09.2025, however, considering the vagueness in his pleadings, he was directed to amend his statement of claim vide order dated 24.09.2025. Workman has thereafter amended his statement of claim by moving an application seeking amendment in statement of claim, which was allowed vide order dated 10.11.2025 and amended statement of claim filed by the Workman on 31.10.2025 was taken on record.
3. Brief case of Workman, as per his amended statement of claim, is that since 18.05.2023, he had been continuously Working as a security guard at the establishment of Management no. 1 through Management no. 2 against last drawn wages of Rs. 17,875/- per month until his services were illegally terminated by Management no. 2 on 01.06.2024 without any notice/charge- sheet or service compensation in violation of provisions of Sections 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is further his case that during his employment, Managements have not provided him with statutory facilities such as, appointment letter, leave book, double over-time, transport allowance and HRA despite repeated demands of the Workman for the same and that his services were terminated by Management no. 2 annoyed by his repeated demands for the aforesaid statutory benefits.
4. Managements, according to him, have failed to reinstate him into the job despite receipt of written demand notice dated 03.07.2024 and despite filing of a complaint as well as claim by the Workman before the concerned Labour Department. Workman has thus prayed for a direction to Management no. 2 to reinstate him into the job with full back wages, continuity of LIR No. 626/2025 Ajay Jakhar Vs. M/s. Instakart Services Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.
Award dated 20.02.2026 Page 3 of 25service and other consequential benefits, while, alleging himself to be wholly unemployed since the date of illegal termination of his services by Management no. 2.
5. Both Managements appeared in response to notice of statement of claim and filed their separate written statements on 14.01.2026.
6. Management no. 1 has refuted the claim of Workman, while, denying existence of any employer-employee relationship between the Workman and Management no. 1. It is the case of Management no. 1, as per its written statement, that it had entered into a manpower agreement with Management no. 2, in terms of which Management no. 2 was responsible for providing security personnel to Management no. 1 on contractual basis. In terms of the aforesaid agreement, according to Management no. 1, it was Management no. 2 alone, who was responsible for recruitment, appointment, deployment, payment of wages, statutory compliancies, attendance management, disciplinary control and disengagement of the personnel deployed by it at the establishment of Management no. 1.
7. Under the aforesaid circumstances, according to Management no. 1, Workman had never appeared in the pay roll/muster roll, attendance systems or salary registers of Management no. 1 as an employee of Management no. 1, in as much as, all matters relating to supervision, recording of attendance, shift allocation, leave, disciplinary action and termination of the employees were being directly looked after by Management no. 2. In the absence of any employer-employee LIR No. 626/2025 Ajay Jakhar Vs. M/s. Instakart Services Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.
Award dated 20.02.2026 Page 4 of 25relationship between Workman and Management no. 1, it is further alleged by Management no. 1, there was no question for termination of services of Workman by Management no. 1 or for that matter for his reinstatement with or without back wages. Management no. 1 has thus prayed for dismissal of present claim of Workman against Management no. 1.
8. On the other hand, Management no. 2, in its written statement, though, has admitted the existence of employer- employee relationship between the Workman and Management no. 2, albeit w.e.f. 07.06.2023, however, has categorically denied termination of services of Workman on 01.06.2024. It is the case of Management no. 2 that Workman himself has stopped attending his duties on his own, in an unauthorized manner, w.e.f. 01.06.2024 without any sanctioned leave and has failed to report for work despite having been called by Management no. 2 on various occasions. Even during conciliation proceedings, according to Management no. 2, he was offered to resume his duties with Management no. 2 and deployment order dated 16.08.2024 was issued in his name requiring him to report for work at the office of M/s Delhi Cargo Services at Terminal-3, Delhi Airport, however, he refused to receive the deployment order.
9. Management no. 2 has thus prayed for dismissal of present claim of Workman not only on the ground that his services were never terminated by Management no. 2, but also, on the ground that he had not completed 240 days of continuous service within the year immediately preceding the date of his alleged termination and that no valid demand notice was ever served by LIR No. 626/2025 Ajay Jakhar Vs. M/s. Instakart Services Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.
Award dated 20.02.2026 Page 5 of 25Workman upon Management no. 2 prior to filing of present claim. Management no. 2 in its written statement has also granted liberty to Workman to report for work which shall be provided by Management no. 2 to the Workman in Delhi-NCR subject to his compliance with the provisions of PSARA 2005.
10. Rejoinder to the written statement of Management no. 2 was also filed by Workman on 14.01.2026 itself upon receipt of an advance copy of written statement of Management no. 2, whereas, he has chosen not to file any rejoinder to the written statement of Management no. 1. In his rejoinder to the written statement of Management no. 2, Workman has once again reiterated the averments made by him in his amended statement of claim and had denied the contrary averments made by Management no. 2 in his written statement.
11. Thereafter, on the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were settled by this Court vide order dated 14.01.2026:-
(i) Whether the Workman himself had stopped reporting on his duty with Management no. 2 w.e.f.
01.06.2024 and had failed to resume his duty with Management no. 2 despite repeated calls and despite issuance of deployment order dated 16.08.2024 by Management no. 2 in his name? OPM2
(ii) Whether the services of Workman were terminated by Management no. 2 on 01.06.2024 illegally and/or unjustifiably? OPW
(iii) Relief, if any.
12. Simultaneously, in view of offer of Management no. 2, in its written statement, for reinstatement of Workman in his job, Workman was directed to report back on duty of Management no.
LIR No. 626/2025Ajay Jakhar Vs. M/s. Instakart Services Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.
Award dated 20.02.2026 Page 6 of 252 on 19.01.2026 at 11 AM along with the concerned Labour Inspector. Later on, it was reported by Workman that pursuant to the aforesaid offer dated 14.01.2026, he had reported at Naraina Office of Management no. 2 along with concerned Labour Inspector and was directed by Management no. 2 to resume his duties w.e.f. 24.01.2026.
13. Workman has thereafter examined himself as WW-1 i.e. as the sole witness in support of his case and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.WW1/A along with following documents:
(i) Ex.WW1/1: Copy of aadhar card of Workman.
(ii) Ex.WW1/2: Copy of claim of Workman before Conciliation Officer, South-West District, Labour Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
(iii) Ex.WW1/3: Copy of demand notice dated 03.07.2024 of Workman addressed to Management no. 1 and 2.
(iv) Ex.WW1/4(colly): Copy of postal receipts regarding dispatch of aforesaid demand notice to Management no. 1 and 2.
(v) Ex.WW1/5: Copy of complaint dated 03.07.2024(sic 03.07.2023) of Workman against Management no. 1 and 2 before Dy. Labour Commissioner, South-West District, Labour Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
(vi) Ex.WW1/6: Copy of report/proceedings dated 25.07.2024, 06.08.2024, 22.08.2024, 12.09.2024 and 26.09.2024 of Labour Inspector.
(vii) Ex.WW1/7: Copy of salary slip of Workman for the month of June 2023 issued by Management no. 2.
(viii)Ex.WW1/8(colly): Copy of identity cards of Workman issued by Management no. 2.
14. WW-1 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for LIR No. 626/2025 Ajay Jakhar Vs. M/s. Instakart Services Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.
Award dated 20.02.2026 Page 7 of 25Management no. 1 and by AR of Management no. 2. No other witness was examined on behalf of Workman despite opportunity and hence, on a separate statement of Workman, Workman's evidence was closed vide order dated 23.01.2026.
15. Management no. 1 has however chosen not to lead any evidence in its defence and hence, on the submission of Ld. Counsel for Management no. 1, evidence on behalf of Management no. 1 was closed vide order dated 23.01.2026.
16. Management no. 2, on the other hand, has examined its Zonal HR Support namely Sh. Ghanshyam Singh Sisodia as M2W1 i.e. as the sole witness in support of its case, who has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.M2W1/A along with following documents:
(i) Mark-M2W1/1: Copy of contract for employment of Workman dated 07.06.2023 with Management no. 2.
(ii) Mark-M2W1/2: Copy of deployment order dated 16.08.2024 of Workman.
17. M2W1 was duly cross-examined by Ld. AR of Workman.
No other witness was examined on behalf of Management no. 2 despite opportunity and hence, the evidence on behalf of Management no. 2 was closed by this Court vide order dated 06.02.2026.
18. Final arguments on behalf of all the parties were thereafter heard on 18.02.2026.
19. It is submitted by Ld. AR for Workman that Workman has been able to prove all the averments made by him in his statement of claim by way of his uncontroverted testimony in the form of LIR No. 626/2025 Ajay Jakhar Vs. M/s. Instakart Services Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.
Award dated 20.02.2026 Page 8 of 25affidavit Ex.WW1/A, which, is duly corroborated by the documents tendered by him in his evidence, as well as, the admissions of Management no. 2 during cross-examination of M2W1. He submits that though, inadvertently, in his statement of claim as well as evidence by way of affidavit, Workman has mentioned the date of his joining with Management no. 2 as 18.05.2023, however, during his cross-examination, he has admitted that he had actually joined his duties with Management no. 2 on 07.06.2023. The aforesaid fact, according to him, has not even been disputed by Management no. 2, in as much as, a bare perusal of the copy of appointment letter Mark-M2W1/1 corroborates the aforesaid stand of Workman.
20. He submits that though, Management no. 2 has taken a plea to the effect that the Workman had not completed continuous service for a period of 240 days within the year preceding the date of his alleged termination, however, in view of admission on the part of M2W1, that he had joined the services of the Management no. 2 w.e.f. 07.06.2023 and had continued to work with the Management no. 2 until the date of his termination, Workman has been able to prove that he had worked with Management no. 2 for a continuous period of 240 days within the year immediately preceding the date of his termination.
21. He further submits that the Workman has also been able to prove through his uncontroverted testimony that his services were illegally terminated by Management no. 2 on 01.06.2024, in as much as, the Operations Manager of Management no. 2 viz. Mr. Satish Yadav has stopped assigning any work to Workman when he reported on his duty on 01.06.2024 and on several dates LIR No. 626/2025 Ajay Jakhar Vs. M/s. Instakart Services Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.
Award dated 20.02.2026 Page 9 of 25thereafter. He submits that despite categorical stand on the part of Workman, during his cross-examination, that he was denied assignment of duty by the Operations Manager of Management no. 2 namely Mr. Satish Yadav, Management no. 2 has failed to examine him as a witness before this Court in order to controvert the testimony of Workman to the aforesaid effect.
22. It is further submitted by him that though, Management no. 2 has tried to take a plea that Workman had stopped reporting on his duty w.e.f. 01.06.2024, on his own, however, admittedly, Management no. 2 had never issued any show cause notice/letter requiring the Workman to report back on his duty. He submits that though Management no. 2 has alleged that Workman had failed to report on his duty despite issuance of a deployment order dated 16.08.2024 by Management no. 2 in his name during pendency of conciliation proceedings, however, Management no. 2 has failed to prove that the said deployment order was ever tendered to or served upon Workman. He submits that the aforesaid submission of Management no. 2 is contradicted by the proceedings Ex.WW1/6, which have taken place in the Labour Department pursuant to the complaint/claim of the Workman.
23. The very fact that the Management no. 2 has failed to respond to the demand notice of Workman despite receipt thereof and Workman has immediately resumed his duties after he had received an offer from Management no. 2 in its written statement, according to him, indicates that the Workman has never abandoned his services with Management no. 2 and was, rather, illegally terminated by Management no. 2 on 01.06.2024 in violation of provisions of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, LIR No. 626/2025 Ajay Jakhar Vs. M/s. Instakart Services Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.
Award dated 20.02.2026 Page 10 of 251947. Since, according to him, Workman has already been reinstated by Management no. 2 pursuant to directions of this Court and Management no. 2 has failed to prove the Workman to be gainfully employed at any point of time since the date of illegal termination of his services until the date of his reinstatement, he is entitled to full back wages for the period of his unemployment i.e. since the date of termination of his services by Management no. 2 until the date of his reinstatement.
24. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for Management no. 1 submits that it is not even the case of Workman that he had ever been in employment of Management no. 1. Rather, according to him, it is the own case of Workman that he was deployed at the establishment of Management no. 1 as an employee of Management no. 2 pursuant to a manpower agreement executed between the two Managements. He submits that during his cross- examination, Workman has admitted not only his appointment by Management no. 2, but also, that his identity cards were also issued by Management no. 2 and that even his salary was being paid by Management no. 2 and not by Management no. 1. He submits that Workman has also admitted that he never had any employer-employee relationship with Management no. 1 and that his services were terminated by Management no. 2 and not by Management no. 1. In view of the aforesaid admitted facts, Ld. Counsel for Management no. 1 has prayed for dismissal of present claim of Workman.
25. So far as Management no. 2 is concerned, relying upon the authoritative pronouncements of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Chand Singh Vs. Sigma Industries Corporation 2012 SCC Online LIR No. 626/2025 Ajay Jakhar Vs. M/s. Instakart Services Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.
Award dated 20.02.2026 Page 11 of 25Delhi 6050 and in Babu Ram Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. 2018 SCC Online Delhi 7243 and the judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Vinod Kumar-II Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court Agra and Anr. 2006 (1) LLN 168; 2003 SCC OnLine All 1269, it is submitted by its AR that despite the onus to prove illegal termination of his services by Management no. 2 being upon Workman, Workman has failed to lead any evidence to discharge the aforesaid onus. On the other hand, according to him, Management no. 2 has been able to prove, through uncontroverted testimony of M2W1, that the services of Workman were never terminated by Management no. 2, rather, Workman himself had stopped reporting on his duty w.e.f. 01.06.2024 despite repeated requests of Management no. 2 to the Workman requiring him to resume his duties.
26. He submits that Management no. 2 has also been able to prove, through uncontroverted testimony of M2W1, that Management no. 2 had all along been offering the Workman to resume his duties with Management no. 2, however, Workman has refused to resume his duties until an order in this regard was passed by this Court pursuant to an offer of Management no. 2 in its written statement. Under the aforesaid circumstances, according to him, in view of authoritative pronouncement of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Sonal Garments Vs Triambak Shankar Karve 2003 LLR 5 (Bombay); 2002 SCC OnLine Bom 819 and of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab Vs. Jagir Singh 2004 SCC Online SC 1194, Workman is not entitled to any back wages.
27. So far as the relief of reinstatement, prayed for Workman in LIR No. 626/2025 Ajay Jakhar Vs. M/s. Instakart Services Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.
Award dated 20.02.2026 Page 12 of 25his statement of claim, is concerned, he submits that the same has already become infructuous, in as much as, pursuant to directions of this Court dated 14.01.2026, Workman has already resumed his duties with Management no. 2 w.e.f. 24.01.2026. He has thus prayed for dismissal of present claim of Workman against Management no. 2.
28. I have heard the submissions made on behalf of all the parties and have carefully perused the material available on record. My issue-wise findings, on the issues settled by this Court vide order dated 14.01.2026, are as follows:
Issue no. (i): Whether the Workman himself had stopped reporting on his duty with Management no. 2 w.e.f. 01.06.2024 and had failed to resume his duty with Management no. 2 despite repeated calls and despite issuance of deployment order dated 16.08.2024 by Management no. 2 in his name? OPM2
29. In view of authoritative pronouncements of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Chand Singh's case (supra) and in Babu Ram's case (supra) and the judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Vinod Kumar-II's case (supra), relied upon by Ld. AR for Management no. 2 himself, onus to prove a particular fact is always upon the person, who alleges the same, whereas, the burden of proof of a case is always upon the person, who will fail, if no evidence is led on behalf of either of the parties.
30. In the case in hand, Workman has alleged illegal termination of his services by Management no. 2 w.e.f. 01.06.2024, whereas, Management no. 2 has alleged that Workman himself had stopped reporting on his duty with Management no. 2 w.e.f.
LIR No. 626/2025Ajay Jakhar Vs. M/s. Instakart Services Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.
Award dated 20.02.2026 Page 13 of 2501.06.2024 and has failed to resume his duties with Management no. 2 despite repeated calls and despite issuance of deployment order dated 16.08.2024 by Management no. 2 in his name. Thus, though, onus to prove illegal termination of his services by Management no. 2 on 01.06.2024 is upon Workman, however, onus to prove that the Workman himself had stopped reporting on his duty with Management no. 2 since 01.06.2024 and had failed to resume his duties with Management no. 2 despite repeated calls and despite issuance of deployment order dated 16.08.2024 in his name is upon Management no. 2.
31. In order to discharge the aforesaid onus, Management no. 2 has examined Sh. Ghanshyam Singh Sisodia, its Zonal HR Support, as M2W1 i.e. as the sole witness in support of its case. A bare perusal of record reveals that neither the copy of any board resolution, nor, any authority letter in the name of Sh. Ghanshyam Singh Sisodia, authorizing him to depose on behalf of Management no. 2, has been filed by Management no. 2. On the contrary, a bare perusal of written statement, filed on behalf of Management no. 2, shows that the same has apparently been signed by one Sh. Sanjeev Taku, who has failed to disclose his status in Management no. 2 company, much less, has he filed any authority letter/copy of board of resolution in his name. Even in the details furnished on behalf of Management no. 2, pursuant to order dated 06.02.2026 of this Court, name of Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Taku has been mentioned as the authorized representative of Management no. 2.
32. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the Court is unable to comprehend as to how Mr. Ghanshyam Singh Sisodia was LIR No. 626/2025 Ajay Jakhar Vs. M/s. Instakart Services Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.
Award dated 20.02.2026 Page 14 of 25authorized to depose on behalf of Management no. 2, particularly when, in Para 1 of his affidavit, he has simply stated that he was fully conversant with the facts of the case on the basis of records maintained by Management no. 2 and not on the basis of his own personal knowledge. The Court is unable to presume M2W1 to be impliedly authorized by Management no. 2, to depose on its behalf, in as much as, he has even failed to produce any original record maintained by Management no. 2 and has rather relied upon a photocopy of the appointment letter of Workman, besides, a photocopy of alleged deployment order dated 16.08.2024.
33. It is not even the case of Management no. 2 that Mr. Ghanshyam Singh Sisodia was deployed by Management no. 2 at the establishment of Management no. 1 in order to supervise the work of Claimant, during his deployment at the site of Management no. 1. Rather, in his affidavit Ex. M2W1/A, M2W1 has referred himself to be Zonal HR Support of Management no. 2 indicating that the Workman had not been working under direct supervision of M2W1. Management no. 2 has also failed to produce any document to prove that the Workman himself had stopped reporting on his duty with Management no. 2 since 01.06.2024, nor, has it examined the supervisor/Manager, supervising the work of Workman, or, any of his co-worker in its evidence to prove the aforesaid fact.
34. In fact, despite categorical deposition of Workman, during his cross-examination, that it was Mr. Satish Yadav, Operations Manager of Management no. 2, who had stopped assigning any work to Workman w.e.f. 01.06.2024, Management no. 2 has failed to examine its Operations Manager Mr. Satish Yadav LIR No. 626/2025 Ajay Jakhar Vs. M/s. Instakart Services Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.
Award dated 20.02.2026 Page 15 of 25before this Court so as to controvert the aforesaid testimony of Workman. Since, Management no. 2 has with-held the best evidence in its possession, in the form of testimony of Mr. Satish Yadav, to contradict the plea of Workman, in my considered opinion, an adverse inference needs to be drawn against Management no. 2 for non-production of its Operations Manager Mr. Satish Yadav as a witness in support of its case.
35. It is the admitted case of Management no. 2 that no show cause notice/letter was ever served by Management no. 2 upon Workman, after 01.06.2024, requiring him to resume his duties with Management no. 2. Although, it is deposed by M2W1 that a deployment order dated 16.08.2024 was tendered by him to the Workman, during pendency of conciliation proceedings, and, the Workman had refused to accept the same, however, Management no. 2 has failed to summon the record of conciliation proceedings from the concerned Labour Department in order to establish the aforesaid fact. On the contrary, Workman has tendered the certified copy of proceedings Ex.WW1/6 (colly), recorded by Labour Inspector, pursuant to his complaint Ex. WW-1/5, to prove that Mr. Ghanshyam Singh Sisodia, though, had appeared before the Labour Inspector on 25.07.2024 and received the copy of complaint dated 03.07.2024 of Workman, however, thereafter, he had never participated in the proceedings before Labour inspector, nor, any reply to the complaint of Workman was ever filed by Management no. 2.
36. Had there been any truth in the plea of M2W1 that Workman had refused to accept the deployment order dated 16.08.2024, it was expected from Management no. 2 to apprise LIR No. 626/2025 Ajay Jakhar Vs. M/s. Instakart Services Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.
Award dated 20.02.2026 Page 16 of 25the concerned Dy. Labour Commissioner about the aforesaid fact during pendency of conciliation proceedings, however, both the pleadings as well as evidence by way of affidavit of M2W1, purportedly filed on behalf of Management no. 2, are conspicuously silent about the aforesaid fact. It is not even the case of Management no. 2 that after the Workman had allegedly refused to accept his deployment order dated 16.08.2024, the same was sent by Management no. 2 to Workman at his residential address by post or courier.
37. In fact, not only, there is no endorsement of any official of Management no. 2 on the copy of alleged deployment order Mark-M2W1/2 regarding refusal by the Workman of acceptance thereof, but, Management no. 2 has also failed to produce the original deployment order before this Court. On the contrary, Workman has tendered a copy of demand notice dated 03.07.2024 Ex.WW1/3, allegedly sent by him to Management no. 2 vide postal receipt Ex.WW1/4, besides, the copy of his complaint dated 03.07.2024 to the Dy. Labour Commissioner and his claim dated 11.07.2024 addressed to the Conciliation Officer in his evidence. A bare perusal of the aforesaid documents indicates that the Workman had been diligently pursuing his claim against Management no. 2, seeking his reinstatement in the job of Management no. 2, while, alleging illegal termination of his services on 01.06.2024.
38. No doubt, Management no. 2 has denied the receipt of demand notice dated 03.07.2024 from Workman and Workman could not produce any proof of delivery thereof to Management no. 2, however, genuineness of postal receipt regarding dispatch LIR No. 626/2025 Ajay Jakhar Vs. M/s. Instakart Services Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.
Award dated 20.02.2026 Page 17 of 25thereof to Management no. 2 has not been disputed by Management no. 2 during cross-examination of Workman, nor, has it been suggested to the Workman that the address mentioned in demand notice Ex.WW1/3 was not the correct address of Management no. 2. Under the aforesaid circumstances, in my considered opinion, a presumption qua due service of aforesaid demand notice upon Management no. 2 arises in terms of Section 27 of General Clauses Act, 1897, which, the Management no. 2 has failed to rebut by leading any cogent evidence.
39. Even if, it is assumed for the sake of arguments that Management no. 2 was unable to respond to the aforesaid demand notice of Workman for want of receipt thereof from Workman, there is no explanation on the part of Management no. 2 for its omission to file any reply to the complaint of Workman before Dy. Labour Commissioner and to the claim of Workman before the Conciliation Officer.
40. Under the aforesaid circumstances, in my considered opinion, adverse inference needs to be drawn against Management no. 2 for not responding to the complaint/claim of Workman before the Labour Department, alleging illegal termination of his services by Management no. 2 on 01.06.2024 despite receipt of notice thereof from the concerned department, as is apparent from a perusal of proceedings Ex.WW1/6. The very fact that immediately upon receipt of first offer in writing from Management no. 2, in its written statement filed on 14.01.2026, Workman has resumed his duties with Management no. 2, in my considered opinion, negates the claim of Management no. 2 that the Workman had stopped reporting on LIR No. 626/2025 Ajay Jakhar Vs. M/s. Instakart Services Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.
Award dated 20.02.2026 Page 18 of 25his duty w.e.f. 01.06.2024 and had failed to resume his duties despite repeated calls and deployment order dated 16.08.2024.
41. In view of the aforesaid discussion, issue no. (i) is hereby decided against Management no. 2.
Issue no. (ii): Whether the services of Workman were terminated by Management no. 2 on 01.06.2024 illegally and/or unjustifiably? OPW
42. As has already been observed herein above, onus to prove the aforesaid issue was upon Workman. In order to discharge the aforesaid onus, Workman has examined himself as WW-1 i.e. as the sole witness in support of his case and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. WW1/A, while, categorically deposing that his services were terminated by Management no. 2 without any notice on 01.06.2024, in violation of provisions of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He has also deposed that not only, a demand notice dated 03.07.2024 was thereafter served by him upon Management no. 2, seeking his reinstatement, but was also constrained to approach the concerned Dy. Labour Commissioner with a complaint Ex. WW1/5 and the Conciliation Officer with a claim Ex. WW1/2, however, Management no. 2 had failed to reinstate him into the job.
43. WW-1 was cross-examined by Ld. AR for Management no. 2 at length, however, in my considered opinion, nothing material could be elicited during his cross-examination so as to cast any doubt about the veracity of his aforesaid testimony, except a minor contradiction in his deposition qua the date of his joining, which was wholly immaterial and could have been due to some inadvertent mistake on the part of Workman.
LIR No. 626/2025Ajay Jakhar Vs. M/s. Instakart Services Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.
Award dated 20.02.2026 Page 19 of 2544. As has already been observed herein above that despite non- production of any proof of delivery of demand notice dated 03.07.2024 upon Management no. 2, Management no. 2 has failed to rebut the presumption, arising under Section 27 of General Clauses Act, 1897, in favour of Workman qua service of his aforesaid demand notice upon Management no. 2. Despite service of aforesaid notice upon Management no. 2, Management no. 2 has failed to respond to the aforesaid demand notice, which omission on the part of Management no. 2, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, gives rise to an adverse inference against Management no. 2 that the allegations, leveled by Workman in the aforesaid demand notice, qua illegal termination of his services w.e.f. 01.06.2024, shall be deemed to have been admitted by Management no. 2.
45. Same is the case with the complaint dated 03.07.2024 of the Workman to Dy. Labour Commissioner (South-West), Labour Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and his claim dated 11.07.2024 before the Conciliation Officer. Filing of the aforesaid complaint as well as claim by the Workman before the aforesaid authorities has not been disputed by Management no. 2. Rather, Management no. 2 has admitted having attended the proceedings before the Conciliation Officer. On the other hand, knowledge of Management no. 2 about the complaint dated 03.07.2024 of Workman to Dy. Labour Commissioner (South-West), Labour Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi has been proved by Workman through proceedings Ex. WW1/6, in as much as, the said proceedings record the attendance of Sh. Ghanshyam Singh Sisodia on behalf of Management no. 2 on 25.07.2024 and the LIR No. 626/2025 Ajay Jakhar Vs. M/s. Instakart Services Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.
Award dated 20.02.2026 Page 20 of 25factum of receipt of a copy of the aforesaid complaint by him from Workman. A bare perusal of aforesaid proceedings also shows that after receipt of copy of complaint from Workman on 25.07.2024, Mr. Ghanshyam Singh Sisodiya stopped appearing in proceedings before the Labour Inspector despite repeated opportunities and notice.
46. It is not even the case of Management no. 2 that it has filed any reply to the aforesaid claim/complaint of the Workman before the Labour Department. The aforesaid omission on the part of Management no. 2 to file any reply to the complaint/claim of Workman before Labour Department, once again, amounts to deemed admission, on the part of Management no. 2, of averments made by Workman in the aforesaid complaint/claim.
47. It has already been observed herein above that Management has failed to prove the service of alleged deployment order dated 16.08.2024 upon the Workman. In fact, Management no. 2 has failed to prove that the said deployment order was ever tendered by it to Workman. Management no. 2 has failed to examine its Operations Manager namely Mr. Satish Yadav in order to controvert the testimony of Workman during his cross- examination dated 23.01.2026 that it was Mr. Satish Yadav, who had stopped assigning him any work w.e.f. 01.06.2024 despite his repeated visits and calls.
48. Thus, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any reason to disbelieve the testimony of Workman that his services were illegally terminated by Management no. 2 on 01.06.2024 in violation of provisions of Section 25F of LIR No. 626/2025 Ajay Jakhar Vs. M/s. Instakart Services Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.
Award dated 20.02.2026 Page 21 of 25Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In fact, from the aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that the Workman had all along been running after Management no. 2 as well as the Labour Department seeking his reinstatement, while, alleging illegal termination of his services by Management no. 2, whereas, Management no. 2 had been avoiding any response to the same.
49. In view of aforesaid discussion, in my considered opinion, Workman has been able to discharge his onus to prove illegal termination of his services by Management no. 2 on 01.06.2024 on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities on the basis circumstantial evidence highlighted herein above.
50. Issue no. (ii) is thus decided in favour of Workman.
Issue no. (iii): Relief, if any.
51. A perusal of record reveals that in his statement of claim, Workman has prayed for his reinstatement with full back wages, continuity of service and other consequential benefits. Relief of reinstatement of Workman into his job has already become infructuous, in as much as, pursuant to the directions of this Court dated 14.01.2026, Workman has admittedly resumed his duties with Management no. 2 w.e.f. 24.01.2026.
52. Ld. AR for Management no. 2 has refuted the claim of Workman for his back wages, while, relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Sonal Garments' case (supra) and the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Jagir Singh's case (supra), in as much as, according to him, failure of Workman to resume his duties with Management no. 2, despite repeated opportunities given by Management no. 2, LIR No. 626/2025 Ajay Jakhar Vs. M/s. Instakart Services Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.
Award dated 20.02.2026 Page 22 of 25disentitles him to the relief of back wages.
53. There can be no dispute about proposition of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Jagir Singh's case (supra) and by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Sonal Garments' case (supra) that if the Workman refuses to resume his duties, pursuant to an offer of Management to reinstate him into the job, no back wages can be awarded in his favour at least with effect from the date of such an offer of Management. However, in the case in hand, it has already been observed herein above that Management no. 2 has failed to prove having given any offer to Workman to resume his duties with Management no. 2, prior to filing of its written statement on 14.01.2026. On the other hand, its offer in the written statement was immediately accepted by Workman, where after, he has resumed his duties with Management no. 2 w.e.f. 24.01.2026.
54. Thus, Management no. 2, in the present case, cannot be allowed to derive any assistance from the propositions of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the aforesaid judgments, so as to defeat the claim of Workman for back wages.
55. A perusal of evidence by way of affidavit of Workman shows that in Para 9 thereof, Workman has categorically claimed himself to be wholly unemployed since the date of termination of his services by Management no. 2, since, he could not get any alternative employment despite efforts. The aforesaid testimony of Workman has remained uncontroverted during his cross- examination.
56. On the other hand, Management no. 2 has failed to prove LIR No. 626/2025 Ajay Jakhar Vs. M/s. Instakart Services Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.
Award dated 20.02.2026 Page 23 of 25that Workman had remained gainfully employed at any point of time after the date of illegal termination of his services by Management no. 2. Rather, the sole witness examined on behalf of Management no. 2 i.e. M2W1, during his cross-examination, has pleaded his ignorance about the fact if the Workman is gainfully employed since the date of termination of his services until the date of his rejoining the Management no. 2.
57. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in my considered opinion, though, the claim of Workman for reinstatement has already become infructuous, the Workman having resumed his duties with Management no. 2 w.e.f. 24.01.2026, however, Workman is not only entitled to continuity of services and consequential benefits, but also, to full back wages, at the rate of wages last drawn by him during his employment with Management no. 2, since the date of illegal termination of his services by Management no. 2 i.e. w.e.f. 01.06.2024 until the date of his resumption of duties with Management no. 2 i.e. until 24.01.2026.
58. Management no. 2 is thus directed to make the payment of aforesaid back wages to Workman within the period of fifteen days from the date of publication of this award, failing which, the said amount shall be payable by Management no. 2 to the Workman along with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this award till the date of actual payment thereof.
59. Considering the pleadings as well as evidence of the Workman, wherein, he has denied existence of any employer- employee relationship between Management no. 1 and himself, LIR No. 626/2025 Ajay Jakhar Vs. M/s. Instakart Services Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.
Award dated 20.02.2026 Page 24 of 25present claim of Workman against Management no. 1 is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.
60. Present claim of Workman against Management no. 2 is thus partly allowed and reference dated 23.07.2025 is answered in the following terms:
"Workman Sh. Ajay Jakhar S/o Sh. Ashwani Kumar has been able to prove illegal termination of his services by Management no. 2 w.e.f. 01.06.2024. He has thus been held entitled to his reinstatement with full back wages, continuity of service and other consequential benefits. However, since he has already been reinstated by Management no. 2, w.e.f. 24.01.2026, Management no. 2 shall extend him the benefit of continuity of service and other consequential benefits besides paying full back wages to him at the rates of his last drawn wages since the date of illegal termination of his services i.e. since 01.06.2024 until the date of his reinstatement i.e. until 24.01.2026 within 15 days from the date of publication of this award, failing which, the aforesaid back wages shall be payable by Management no. 2 to Workman alongwith simple interest @9% per annum from the date of this award until the date of actual payment of back wages. The claim of Workman qua Management no. 1 is hereby dismissed."
61. Ordered accordingly.
62. Requisite number of copies of this award be sent to the competent authority for publication as per rules.
Announced in the open Court on this 20th day of February, 2026. This award consists of 25 number of signed pages. ARUN Digitally by ARUN signed KUMAR GARG KUMAR Date:
GARG 2026.02.20 15:59:05 +0530 (ARUN KUMAR GARG) Presiding Officer Labour Court-III Rouse Avenue Court, New Delhi LIR No. 626/2025 Ajay Jakhar Vs. M/s. Instakart Services Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.Award dated 20.02.2026 Page 25 of 25