Delhi District Court
Naveen Kumar S/O Sh. Shiv Charan vs M/S Examine Body, Through Its Chairman, ... on 21 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS RITU SINGH, DISTRICT JUDGE &
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE PRESIDING OFFICER
LABOUR COURT - IV, ROUSE AVENUE COURTS COMPLEX,
NEW DELHI
LIR No. 377/2024
CNR No. DLCT13-001911-2024
Sh. Naveen Kumar s/O Sh. Shiv Charan
R/o N-8, A-203, T-Hut, G Block,
Jahangirpuri, North West, Delhi
.........Workman
vs
(1) M/s Examine Body for Para Medical Training
For Bhartiya Chiktsa (Through its Chairman), Delhi
Block No. 04, Under Ringh Road Bypass Flyover,
Opp. Gate No. 10, Indira Gandhi Stadium,
I. P. State, New Delhi 110002
(2) M/s Sovereign Enterprises,
L.B-9, Arunachal Building Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi 110001
..........Managements
Date of Institution : 09.04.2024
Date of Argument : 04.02.2026
Date of Award : 21.02.2026
Decision : Claim dismissed.
AWARD
1. Vide this Award, this Court shall decide the Industrial Dispute which
was referred by Deputy Labour Commissioner, (New Delhi District)
Employment Exchange Building, Pusa Campus, New Delhi 110012, on a
complaint filed by the workman against both the Managements, vide
LIR No. 377/2024 Naveen Kumar vs. M/s Examine Body & Ors Page No. 1/17
reference dated 16.02.2024 u/s 10(1)(c) and 12 (5) of The Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, wherein the following reference was to be answered :-
"Whether the services of workman Sh. Naveen Kumar
S/o Sh. Shiv Charan 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 the respect?"
THE CLAIM OF THE WORKMAN
2. Notice of reference was issued to the workman and he has appeared
before the Court and filed his statement of claim.
3. Notice of reference was issued to the workman and he has appeared
before the Court and filed his statement of claim.
4. The workman Sh. Naveen Kumar has asserted in his statement of
claim that he had been working in management no.2 (M/s Examining Body
for Para Medical Training for Bhartiay Chikitsa) through
contractor/management no.1 (M/s Sovereign Enterprises) since 01.01.2020,
on the post of Multi Tasking Staff/peon at last drawn monthly salary was of
Rs. 16,341/-. He has further alleged in his statement of claim that he was
illegally terminated by management no. 1 on 03.04.2022, without any
notice, reason or charge sheet and that his termination was illegal and in
violation of procedure u/s 25F of ID Act.
5. It is claimed by the workman that his service were terminated by the
management no.1 as he had demanded his legal entitlements like
appointment letter, bonus, pay slips etc which the management no. 2 was
not providing to him. He has also claimed that he was made to do the
personal work and household work of the Chairman of management no.2 on
assurance that he would be made permanent employee. The workman has
LIR No. 377/2024 Naveen Kumar vs. M/s Examine Body & Ors Page No. 2/17
claimed that that management no. 1 had illegally deducted his wages/ salary
and when he protested against the same, he was made to perform extra
work. The workman has alleged that that Chairman of management no. 2
had told him that if he wanted to be permanent employee in management
no.2, he would have to spend Rs. 5 lac and workman had given Rs. 70,000/-
cash to Chairman of management no.2, out of Rs. 5 lac. Workman has
alleged that management no. 2 had terminated him on 03.01.2022 but he
had continued to work for management no. 1 till 03.04.2022. He has
claimed that he had been performed his duty sincerely, honestly and
diligently without any complaint by his superiors.
6. Workman has further claimed in his statement of claim that his
termination was absolutely illegal and arbitrary and that management no. 1
had not servse any charge sheet or conducted domestic inquiry against him
and management no.1 had also not paid him his notice pay and his earned
wages. He has alleged that at the time of his termination, management no.1
had obtained his signatures on several papers, on the pretext of renewal of
his contract. The workman has conceded in his statement of claim that
management no. 2 is a proforma party in present case.
7. Workman had sent demand notice to the managements, but
managements had not replied to his demand notice and thereafter, workman
had represented his case before the Conciliation Officer and representative
of the managements had appeared before the Conciliation Officer and the on
failure of conciliation proceedings, the Conciliation Officer had referred this
case for adjudication.
8. The workman has claimed that since his illegal termination, he had
been jobless, despite efforts made to find job. The workman has claimed
that while terminating the services of the workman, managements had not
paid him dues of his earned wages. By way of this petition, workman has
LIR No. 377/2024 Naveen Kumar vs. M/s Examine Body & Ors Page No. 3/17
prayed for directions to managements to reinstate him with full back wages
with continuity of service and consequential benefits and for payment of his
monitory dues.
9. Notice of the statement of claim of the workman was issued to both
managements and pursuant to the service of the notice, both managements
had entered appearance before the Court and filed their respective written
statement/reply.
VERSION OF MANAGEMENT NO.1 IN ITS WRITTEN STATEMENT
10. In its written statement, management no. 1 has alleged that workman
has not appeared before the Court with clean hands and concealed the
material facts. Management no.1 has explained in its written statement that
management no. 1 is a partnership firm and its office at LB-9 Arunachal
Building, 19 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi and that it has been providing
manpower services to the government and other offices. Management no. 1
has further stated that it had entered into an agreement/contract dated
22.11.2019 for a period of one year w.e.f 22.11.2019 till 21.11.2020, with
management no.2 and as per the terms and condition of the agreement,
management no. 1 had provided 3 multi-tasking staff/peon to the
management no. 2.
11. In its written statement, management no. 1 has alleged that workman
has not appeared before the Court with clean hands and concealed the
material facts. Management no.1 has explained in its written statement that
management no. 1 is a partnership firm and its office at LB-9 Arunachal
Building, 19 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi and that it has been providing
manpower services to the government and other offices. Management no. 1
has further stated that it had entered into an agreement/contract dated
22.11.2019 for a period of one year w.e.f 22.11.2019 till 21.11.2020, with
LIR No. 377/2024 Naveen Kumar vs. M/s Examine Body & Ors Page No. 4/17
management no.2 and as per the terms and condition of the agreement,
management no. 1 had provided 3 multi-tasking staff/peon to the
management no. 2.
12. Management no.1 has admitted that workman was appointed by it on
01.01.2020 as peon/MTS on contract basis and deployed by it in
management no. 2 and that management no. 2 used to provide attendance
sheet of workman to the management no.1, on basis of which, management
no.1 used to pay the salary to workman. Management no. 1 has alleged that
management no.2 had extended its agreement /contract dated 22.11.2019
with management no.1, from time to time and said contract had expired on
31.12.2021. Management no.1 has alleged that workman had knowledge
regarding extension as well as expiry of the said agreement /contract dated
22.11.2019, between management no.1 and management no. 2.
13. Management no.1 has asserted that workman had served with the
management no.2 for a period of two years as initially the
agreement/contract between management no.1 and management no. 2 was
for the one year but it was extended for another one year as per requirement
of management no.2. Management no. 1 has admitted that it had paid
wages/salary to the workman as per the minimum wages Act of NCT of
Delhi through bank transfer. Management no.1 has alleged that the
behaviour of the workman was not appropriate towards the management
no.2 and that on 24.07.2020, he had indulged in heated arguments with the
security guard of management no.2 and that management no.2 had
constituted inquiry committee to inquire about the said incident and that
detailed inquiry report dated 30.09.2020 was prepared and at request of
management no.1, management no. 2 had not taken any action against the
workman and closed the inquiry by giving warning to the present workman.
LIR No. 377/2024 Naveen Kumar vs. M/s Examine Body & Ors Page No. 5/17
14. Management no. 1 has asserted that workman had knowledge
regarding last date of agreement/contract dated 22.11.2019 between
management no.1 and management no. 2 and it had informed the workman
vide its letter dated 01.12.2021 regarding the same and this letter was
handed over to the workman, by hand as well as via Whatsapp sent to him
on his mobile number.
15. Management no.1 has claimed that on 21.02.2022 management no.2
had issued proformance/work completion certificate to the management
no.1, which clearly shows that 31.12.2021 was the last date of contract and
that no question arises of workman continuing job after 31.12.202.
16. Management no.1 has denied the remaining allegations of workman
and it has prayed for dismissal of present claim petition of the workman.
VERSION OF MANAGEMENT NO.2 IN ITS WRITTEN STATEMENT
17. Management no.2 in its written statement has denied that it had
employed any workman and also denied that it had removed the services of
workman. The management no. 2 has stated in its written statement that
present workman was engaged as outsource/contractual employee through
the management no.1 and there is no employer-employee relationship
between the workman and management no. 2. Management no.2 has
asserted that agreement/contract dated 22.11.2019 was executed between
management no. 2 and management no.1 for engaging of 3 Multi-Tasking
Staff/Peon on outsource basis for period of one year and that said
agreement/contract ended on 31.12.2021. It is alleged by management no. 2
in its written statement that workman has sought relief from management
no.1 only.
LIR No. 377/2024 Naveen Kumar vs. M/s Examine Body & Ors Page No. 6/17
18. The management no. 2 has stated in its written statement that
workman has not filed any bank statement, appointment letter or any other
document to substantiate his claim of employment with management no.2.
Management no.2 has claimed that it had never paid wages/salary of
workman or any other statutory benefits to him. Management no.2 has
prayed that and the present claim of the workman be dismissed as the claim
is wholly misconceived, vexatious, misleading, misrepresented,
unsustainable, false and frivolous and a flagrant abuse of the process of law.
Management no.1 has denied all the remaining allegations of the workman.
19. Management no.2 has denied all the remaining allegations of the
workman levelled against it. Management no.2 has claimed in its written
statement that the workman had never worked as an employee of
management no. 2 and that in absence of contract of service between
workman and management no.2, the present claim of the workman is not
maintainable against management no.2
20. Management no.2 has alleged that workman has not come before the
Court with clean hands and has intentionally and deliberately suppressed the
material facts in his application, which disentitles the workman to grant of
any relief.
21. After completion of the pleadings of the parties, issues were settled
and vide order dated 14.02.2025 of this Court, the following issues were
framed:-
(i) Whether the services of the workman Sh. Naveen Kumar S/o
Sh. Shiv Charan have been terminated illegally and/or
unjustifiably by the management ? OPW
(ii) What relief is the workman entitled and what
directions are necessary in this respect? OPW
LIR No. 377/2024 Naveen Kumar vs. M/s Examine Body & Ors Page No. 7/17
EVIDENCE OF WORKMAN
22. In order to prove his case, the workman has examined himself as
WW1 and tendered his evidence affidavit Ex. PW-1/A wherein he has
reiterated the contents of statement of claim on solemn affirmation. Besides
this, he had also placed on record the following documents:-
(i) PW1/1 (Colly) are pay slips issued by management.
(ii) PW1/2 is office order of respondent no.2
(iii) PW1/3 (Colly) is ID card issued by respondent
23. Workman was cross-examined by Ld. AR for the management no.1 and AR of management no. 2.
24. The workman has also examined WW2 Sh. Jai Prakash MTS, Labour Office, Pusa, ITI Employment Exchange, who has appeared before the Court and brought the summoned record I.e copy of statement of claim filed by the claimant before the Conciliation Officer, Govt of NCT of Delhi, same is Ex. WW2/A (colly & pages, OSR). Opportunity to cross-examine this witness was given to management no.1 and management no. 2 and they both have availed the same as nil and as per submissions of AR for the workman, workman evidence was closed vide order dated 21.05.2025.
25. Thereafter, matter was listed for managements evidence.
EVIDENCE OF MANAGEMENT NO.1
26. The management no.1 has examined M1W1 Sh. Sandeep Rawat who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.R1W1, reiterating the version of management no.1 therein on solemn affirmation. He has also relied on documents Ex. R1W1 to Ex. R1W1/I and also document exhibited in testimony of the workman as Ex. WW1/M1 during cross-examination of workman. This witness was cross-examined by AR of the workman.
LIR No. 377/2024 Naveen Kumar vs. M/s Examine Body & Ors Page No. 8/17EVIDENCE OF MANAGEMENT NO.2
27. Management no.2 has examined M2W1 Sh. Raj Kumar, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.M2W1/A, reiterating the version of management no.2 on solemn affirmation. He also relied on the following documents:
(i) Copy of order dated 27.02.2023 is Ex. MW2/1 (OSR)
(ii) proformance certificate dated 21.02.2022 and agreement dated 22.11.2019 along with terms and conditions is Ex. MW2/2 (OSR) (Colly, running into 7 pages)
(iii) Extension letter dated 30.11.2021, 11.08.2021, 19.05.2021, 01.03.2021 and 01.12.2020 are Ex. MW2/3 (OSR) (Colly, running into 5 pages)
(iv) proformance certificate dated 21.02.2022 Ex. MW2/4.
(v) Copy of letter dated 29.11.2019 is Ex. MW2/5 (OSR)
(vi) Copy of letter dated 16.01.2020 & Ex. MW2/6 (OSR)
(vii) Copy of office order dated 27.01.2020 is Ex. MW2/7 and now same is de-exhibited being photocopy and marked as Mark- MW2/7.
(viii) copy of reply dated 12.10.2022 sent to the claimant and management no.2 is Ex. MW2/8 (OSR).
28. This witness was also cross-examined by AR of the workman.
29. Thereafter, evidence of managements was closed 21.08.2025.
30. Thereafter, matter was listed for final arguments. Written submissions and judgments were filed. Same has been perused. This Court has heard the detailed final arguments addressed by AR for the workman and ARs of the management no.1 and management no. 2 and thoroughly perused the record, written submissions, judgment and documents on record.
31. Issue-wise findings of this Court are as under:-
LIR No. 377/2024 Naveen Kumar vs. M/s Examine Body & Ors Page No. 9/17ANALYSIS & FINDING OF COURT ISSUE NO.1
(i) Whether the services of the workman Sh. Naveen Kumar S/o Sh. Shiv Charan have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management ? OPW
32. The onus to prove this issue was on the workman.
33. The workman has claimed that he was working since 01.01.2020 as Multi-Tasking Staff/Peon in management no. 2 through management no.1/contractor. He has claimed in his statement of claim that management no. 1 had terminated his services on 03.01.2022, but even thereafter, he had continued to work for management no.1 and he has alleged that management no.1 had illegally terminated him on 03.04.2022, without any reason, without any prior notice and without serving any charge sheet. He has alleged that he had performed personal and household work of Chairman of management no. 2, on assurance from him that he would be made permanent employee. Workman has also admitted in his statement of claim that management no. 2 is only a proforma party, in present case.
34. On the other hand, management no.1 has claimed that it is a proprietorship firm and had executed agreement/contract dated 22.11.2019 with management no.2, for providing three multi-tasking staff/peon to management no. 2 for period of one year, from 22.11.2019 till 21.11.2020.
35. Management no. 1 had admitted in its reply that pursuant to abovesaid contract it had appointed the workman on 01.01.2020, to work in management no. 2 as MTS/Peon on contractual basis. Management no. 1 has asserted that its contract dated 22.11.2019 with management no.2 was extended from time to time and it had expired on 31.12.2021 and that present workman had complete knowledge regarding the extension of LIR No. 377/2024 Naveen Kumar vs. M/s Examine Body & Ors Page No. 10/17 contract between management no.1 and management no. 2 as well as regarding its expiry on 31.12.2021.
36. Management no. 1 has asserted that the last working day of the workman was 31.12.2021, as the contract between management no.1 and management no. 2 had expired on 31.12.2021, as it was not further extended or renewed. Management no. 1 has claimed that it had paid the entire wages/salary to the workman as per the minimum wages Act through bank transfer /online mode.
37. Management no. 2 has filed its written statement, wherein it has denied employer-employee relationship with the workman and has claimed that management no. 2 had engaged present workman as outsourced/contractual employee through management no.1. Management no. 2 has conceded that it had awarded contract to management no.1 vide its letter dated 15.11.2019, for engagement of three multi-tasking staff on outsource basis for period one year. Management no. 2 has claimed that the payment of the wages/salary was made through the management no.1/contract to the workman.
38. Management no.2 has stated in its written statement that since the contract dated 22.11.2019 between management no.1 and management no. 2 had lapsed on 31.12.2021 and as a consequence, the services of the present workman were not continued further.
39. In the present case, it is not disputed that workman was appointed by management no.1 on 01.01.2020, pursuant to contract dated 22.11.2019 with management no.2 for providing MTS/Poen to management no.2. Management no.1 has claimed that employment of workman was co- extensive with agreement/contract dated 22.11.2019 with management no. 2, for deployment of 3 MTS/Peon. Management no.1 has asserted that it had LIR No. 377/2024 Naveen Kumar vs. M/s Examine Body & Ors Page No. 11/17 deployed workman as MTS/peon in management no.2. on contractual basis in view of contract dated 22.11.2019 with management no.2.
40. Thus, from testimony adduced by both parties and admission of workman, it is clear that workman was appointed by management no.1 and his salary was also paid by management no.1. Thus, the economic control over workman was exercised by management no.1 and not by management no. 2. Moreover, workman had also admitted in his claim statement that management no.2 was only a proforma party. In view of these admissions of the workman, it is apparent that there was no employer-employee relationship between the workman and management no.2 and therefore, no question of illegal termination of the workman by management no.2 arises, present case.
41. The defence plea of management no.1 is that the workman was informed by it since the beginning of his employment, that his employment in management no. 1 was contractual and co-extensive with agreement/contract dated 22.11.2019 between management on.1 and management no.2 and that workman had been informed regarding extension of period of his employment, as and when contract dated 22.11.2019 was extended from time to time. M2W1 Sh. Raj Kumar has relied on extension letters, which are Ex. MW2/3 (Colly, 5 pages) which corroborates the claim of management no.1. Management no.1 has further contended that the workman was informed by it well in advance that contract of management no.1 with management no.2 would lapse on 31.12.2021 as it was not renewed or extended further and to substantiate this claim, witness of management no.1 M1W1 has relied on its letter dated 01.12.2021 Ex. R1W1/G, which was purportedly sent by management no.1 to workman informing him of date of expiry of said contract.
LIR No. 377/2024 Naveen Kumar vs. M/s Examine Body & Ors Page No. 12/1742. The workman has admitted in his cross-examination that he was appointed by management no.1 and that his employment was on contractual basis and that his salary was also paid by management no.1. The workman has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that he was aware of fact that management no.1 was a service provider, who had executed the agreement/contract with management no. 2 and that his appointment by management no. 1 was for deployment in management no.2. He has conceded that he was informed by supervisor of management no.2 regarding extension of said contract between management no.1 and management no.
2. The workman has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that he was informed by management no.1 that the agreement /contract between management no.1 and management no.2, would expire on 31.12.2021 and that the management no. 1 would not be responsible for his employment /job after 31.12.2021.
43. Admittedly, the workman has not placed on record any document to prove that he had worked in management no.1 or even in management no.2 after 31.12.2021, even though he had alleged that even thereafter, he had continued to work till 03.04.2022, as he has alleged that he was verbally asked by management no.2 to attend personal work of Chairman of management no.2. However, his testimony on this point is vague and ambiguous as he has neither named the person of management no.2, who had asked him to continue work in management no. 2 nor has he mentioned the date or mode of such verbal communication made to him.
44. Thus, the defence plea of the management no.1 finds ample corroboration from admissions of the workman in his cross-examination as workman has clearly admitted that he was appointed by management no.1 on contractual basis to work in management no.2, as management no.1 was service provider and had executed contract with management no.2 for LIR No. 377/2024 Naveen Kumar vs. M/s Examine Body & Ors Page No. 13/17 providing such multi-tasking staff/peon and that he was aware of the fact that said agreement/contract between management no.1 and management no.2 would expire on 31.12.2021. he has admitted that he was informed by management no.1 that on expiary of said contract, management no.1 would not be responsible for job of workman thereafter.
45. Thus, it is apparent that since inception of his employment with management no.1, workman had known that his employment with management no.1 was contractual and co-extensive with agreement/ contract dated 22.11.2019 between management no.1 and management no.2. Admittedly, he was also informed by management no.1 that said agreement/ contract would expire on 31.12.2021, as it was not extended or renewed further and with its expiry, his job with management no.1 would come to end. Thus, consequential discharge or termination of the workman on 31.12.2021 from service of management no.1 on expiry of said contract does not constitute 'retrenchment' as it is covered within the ambit of statutory exception to retrenchment recognized u/s 2(oo)(bb) Industrial Disputes Act, which provides that retrenchment does not include 'termination of the services of the workman as a result of non renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry. 'Retrenchment' had been defined in section 2 (oo) ID Act as the termination of the services of a workman by the employer for any reason, whatsoever, except the four exceptions carved out therein and as per Clause (bb) of Section 2 (oo) of the I. D. Act, termination of service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman on its expiry, does not amount to retrenchment.
46. In this regard it is relevant to refer to judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Jitender Kumar vs State (NCT of Delhi) 2019 SCC Online Del LIR No. 377/2024 Naveen Kumar vs. M/s Examine Body & Ors Page No. 14/17 10648, wherein Hon'ble High Court of Delhi relying on the judgment of S M Nilajkar vs Telecom District Manager (2003) 4SCC 27 has observed in respect of applicability of section 2 (oo) (bb) ID Act that:-
"In S M Nilajkar vs Telecom District Manager (2003) 4SCC 27 , Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the management pleads that clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the ID Act is attracted; the burden of proof would be on the management to establish the same by way of evidence. Paragraphs 13 and 14 of the said judgment read as under:
"13. The termination of service of a workman engaged in a scheme or project may not amount to retrenchment within the meaning of Sub-clause (bb) subject to the following conditions being satisfied:
(i) that the workman was employed in a project or scheme of temporary duration;
(ii) the employment was on a contract, and not as a daily-
wager simplicitor, which provided inter alia that the employment shall come to an end on the expiry of the scheme or project; and
(iii) the employment came to an end simultaneously with the termination of the scheme or project and consistently with the terms of the contract.
(iv) the workman ought to have been apprised or made aware of the abovesaid terms by the employer at the commencement of employment.14. The engagement of a workman as a daily-wager does not by itself amount to putting the workman on notice that he was being engaged in a scheme or project which was to last only for a particular length of time or upto to occurrence of some event, and therefore, the workman ought to know that his employment was short-lived. The contract of employment consciously entered into by the workman with the employer would result in a notice to the workman on the date of the commencement of the employment itself that his employment was short-lived and as per the scheme or project coming to an end. The workman may not therefore complain that by the act of employer his employment was coming to an abrupt termination. To exclude the termination of a scheme or project employee from the definition of retrenchment it is for the employer to prove the abovesaid ingredients so as to attract the applicability of Sub-clause (bb) abovesaid. In the case at hand, the respondent- employer has failed in alleging and proving the ingredients of Sub-clause (bb), as stated hereinabove. All that has been proved is that the appellants were engaged as casual workers or daily-wagers in a project. For want of proof attracting applicability of Sub-clause (bb), it has to LIR No. 377/2024 Naveen Kumar vs. M/s Examine Body & Ors Page No. 15/17 be held that the termination of the services of the appellants amounted to retrenchment."
47. In the case at hand, since workman has not disputed that he was in contractual employment of management no.1 and further admitted that he had knowledge since beginning that his employment was dependent and co- extensive with agreement/ contract dated 22.11.2019 between management no.1 and management no. 2 and that said contract would expire on 31.12.2021 therefore, in view of observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in S M Nilajkar vs Telecom District Manager (Supra), termination of services of the workman simultaneously with expiry of said contract on 31.12.2021, is well covered within statutorily recognized exception to 'retrenchment' provided in u/s 2 (oo) (bb) of ID Act and therefore, it does not attract rigors of Section 25-F of ID Act.
48. Similarly, it has been held in Director, Institute of Management Development U. P., Appellant vs Smt Pushpa Srivastava, Respondent; 1992 (65) FLR that:-
"Where the appointment is purely on adhoc basis and is contractual and by efflux of time, the appointment comes to an end, the person holding such post can have no right to continue in the post. This is so even if the person is continued from time to time on adhoc basis for more than a year"
49. Moreover, the testimony of workman also suffers from material contradictions as he has given contradictory versions in his evidence affidavit Ex. PW1/A. The workman has given two different versions in his evidence affidavit Ex. PW1/A itself, as he has mentioned in para 2 of Ex.PW1/A that he was terminated by management no.1 on 03.04.2022, while in later part of same affidavit Ex. PW1/A, he had stated that management no. 1 had terminated him on 03.01.2022, but he had continued to work for Chairman of management no. 2 till 03.04.2022, where he was performing personal and household work. Considering the contradictions in LIR No. 377/2024 Naveen Kumar vs. M/s Examine Body & Ors Page No. 16/17 evidence affidavit of workman, this Court is of opinion that the testimony of the workman is not only inconsistent, but also unreliable and does not inspire confidence of the Court.
50. Accordingly, this Court holds that management no.1 has succeeded in establishing that workman was it contractual employee and that workman had knowledge of fact that the period of his employment in management no.1 was co-extensive with agreement/ contract dated 22.11.2019 and that said contract would ultimately lapse on 31.12.2021 and therefore, discharge /termination of the workman from the services of the management no.1 on 31.12.2021 on expiry of said control does not amount to retrenchment and accordingly, termination of services of workman is not illegal or unjustified. In view of these observations, issue no.1 is decided against the workman and in favour of management no.1.
ISSUE NO.2 RELIEF
51. Consequent upon findings of this Court in Issue no. 1, this Court is of opinion that workman is not entitled to any relief in the present case.
52. Issue no. 2 is decided, accordingly.
53. Accordingly, the statement of claim of workman is dismissed. Award has been passed and Reference is answered accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room The award be also uploaded on server.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed Announced in the open Court RITU SINGH
by RITU
On 21st February 2026
Date:
SINGH 2026.02.21
16:36:02
+0530
(RITU SINGH)
District Judge,
POLC-IV/RADC,
New Delhi/21.02.2026
LIR No. 377/2024 Naveen Kumar vs. M/s Examine Body & Ors Page No. 17/17