Delhi District Court
Deepa Shukla vs M/S Overseas Courier Services I Pvt on 19 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. ARUN KUMAR GARG
PRESIDING OFFICER : LABOUR COURT-III
ROUSE AVENUE COURTS COMPLEX : NEW DELHI.
CNR No. DLCT13-006242-2025
Ref. No. F.25(R-56)ID-01-2025/SWD/Lab./229 dated 16.09.2025
LIR No. 763/2025
Ms. Deepa Shukla D/o Sh. Narender Kumar Shukla,
Mobile No. 9654428026
R/o A-54, Nathu Colony,
Near Radha Krishna Temple, Shahdara,
New Delhi-110093.
Through:
Sh. Shrikant Malviya, Advocate,
Chamber No. 115-116, Western Wing,
Tis Hazari Court,
Delhi
Also Through:
Sh. Sumiteshwar Chowdhary,
Advocate/AR of Workman,
Enrollment No. D/1363/2003
Mobile No. 9213122106
And
Sh. Rajat Tanwar,
Advocate/AR of Workman,
Enrollment No. D/10121/2021
Mobile No. 9716087553 ..... Workman
VERSUS
M/s. Overseas Courier Service (India) Pvt. Ltd.,
Through its Managing Director/Authorised Signatory,
Mr. Kumtsuzim, Mr. Mayank Bhardwaj, (Manager HR),
Ms. Sangeeta (Asstt. Manager Customer Service),
The One Khasra No. 30/14/01, Revenue Estate of Kapashera,
New Delhi-110037
LIR No. 763/2025
Deepa Shukla Vs. M/s. Overseas Courier Service (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Award dated 19.02.2026 Page 1 of 34
Registered / Office Address of the Management:
Khasra No. 30, Revenue Estate of Kapashera,
The One, 14/1, New Delhi-110037
Through:
Its Authorized Representative :
Sh. Mayank Bhardwaj, Manager HQ-HR & Accounts,
Mobile No. 9999122941
Email address of the Management:
[email protected] ..... Management
Date of Institution of the case : 20.09.2025
Date on which Award is passed : 19.02.2026
AWARD
1.By this award, I will dispose off the present claim filed by Workman on 16.10.2025, pursuant to reference under Section 10(1)(C) & 2(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(R-56)ID-01-2025/SWD/Lab./229 dated 16.09.2025, whereby, the following issue has been referred to this Court for adjudication:-
"Whether the services of Ms. Deepa Shukla D/o Sh. Narender Kumar Sharma, DOB - 05/04/1987, Mobile No. 8826813662, Aadhar Card No. 702474681075, have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the Management vide email dated 04/09/2024; if so, to what relief is she entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"
2. Brief case of Workman, as per her statement of claim, is that she had been in employment of Management since 14.05.2018 until her illegal and unjust termination on 04.09.2024. It is further LIR No. 763/2025 Deepa Shukla Vs. M/s. Overseas Courier Service (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Award dated 19.02.2026 Page 2 of 34her case that she had joined the services of Management as an Executive, Customer Service and was, later on, promoted to the post of Senior Executive, Customer Service vide letter dated 13.04.2021 against last drawn gross salary of Rs. 30,874/- per month. On 30.08.2024, according to her, she was subjected to verbal abuse, public humiliation and hostile work environment by her Assistant Manager, Customer Care Service namely Ms. Sangeeta in the presence of other employees and was thereafter forcibly ousted from the office premises on the same day.
3. Lacking faith in internal grievance mechanism of Management, due to close association between Ms. Sangeeta and Mr. Mayank Bhardwaj, HR Manager of Management, she submits, she had promptly reported the incident dated 30.08.2024, on the same day, to the Managing Director of Management through whats app, who had duly acknowledged the aforesaid message and assured to look into the matter. On 02.09.2024, according to her, she was instructed by her HR Manager via whats app not to contact the MD demonstrating a concerted effort on the part of Management to suppress her complaint. Instead of conducting a fair and impartial inquiry into Workman's complaint of harassment, according to Workman, she was terminated from her services vide email dated 04.09.2024, as a retaliatory and malafide move, allegedly on the ground of misconduct, insubordination and unauthorized absence citing past warnings given by Management to Workman in the year 2022.
4. Aforesaid termination of her services, without any show cause notice, charge sheet, domestic inquiry or opportunity of hearing, according to her, is in gross violation of principles of LIR No. 763/2025 Deepa Shukla Vs. M/s. Overseas Courier Service (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Award dated 19.02.2026 Page 3 of 34natural justice, more so, when her absence from 31.08.2024 to 03.09.2024 was a direct consequence of mental trauma and hostile environment created by Ms. Sangeeta and the Management's inaction on the complaint of Workman. After illegal termination of her services, she submits, a legal notice dated 07.09.2024 was issued by her to Management, requiring the Management to reinstate her into the job with back wages, however, instead of reinstating her into the job, Management had sent a reply dated 23.09.2024 to her legal notice denying its liability and refusing her reinstatement.
5. It is further her case that she has not been reinstated into the job of Management despite her complaint/claim before concerned Labour Commissioner/Conciliation Officer. She has thus prayed for setting aside of order dated 04.09.2024 of Management, received by her through email, terminating her services with immediate effect and for a direction to Management to reinstate her into the job with full back wages, continuity of service and other consequential benefits. As an alternative to reinstatement, she has prayed for award of adequate compensation in her favour, besides, a direction to Management to pay her salary for the month of August 2024, bonus for the year 2023-24, encashment of accrued earned leaves, gratuity and PF contributions with interest and compensation for mental harassment and litigation costs.
6. Management has thereafter entered its appearance and filed its written statement to the claim of Workman on 01.12.2025. In its written statement, Management has not disputed the fact that Workman was initially appointed by Management as an LIR No. 763/2025 Deepa Shukla Vs. M/s. Overseas Courier Service (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Award dated 19.02.2026 Page 4 of 34Executive, Customer Service and was thereafter promoted to the post of Senior Executive, Customer Service on 13.04.2021. The case of Management, however, is that she was appointed on 26.06.2018 and not on 4.05.2018. As a recognition of her merit, according to Management, she was given multiple opportunities to grow within the organization, however, she started exhibiting acts of negligence, non-compliance, insubordination and violation of Company policies, in as much as, on one occasion, she was found guilty of manipulation of her attendance records, for which she had tendered a written apology to Management, and on another occasion, she was issued a warning letter dated 13.06.2022 on account of her ongoing irresponsible conduct.
7. On 30.08.2024, according to Management, she committed a grave act of misconduct, in as much as, during official working hours, she verbally abused and misbehaved with her senior Ms. Sangeeta, Assistant Manager, in a loud and aggressive tone, in the presence of several employees of Management, in violation of Company's Code of Conduct, creating a hostile and disruptive work environment. Immediately after the aforesaid misbehavior, according to Management, Workman attempted to shift the entire blame for the incident upon her Assistant Manager viz. Ms. Sangeeta and contrary to Company protocol, instead of following internal grievance redressal mechanism, she directly contacted the Company's Managing Director despite the fact that HR Department of the Management was the first point of contact for such concerns. When, according to Management, its HR Representative, Mr. Mayank Bhardwaj reached out to Workman to address the matter professionally, she openly showed distrust LIR No. 763/2025 Deepa Shukla Vs. M/s. Overseas Courier Service (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Award dated 19.02.2026 Page 5 of 34into the Company's redressal system by stating that "I know you will do nothing in my favour."
8. The aforesaid statement on the part of Workman, according to Management, clearly reflects her prejudiced mind set, unwillingness to cooperate and her pre-determined intention to escalate internal issues unnecessarily. Subsequent to her misconduct on 30.08.2024, Management submitted that Workman remained absent for three consecutive days without submitting her leave application, intimation or approval from the Management or its HR Department which amounts to willful insubordination and abandonment of her duties, aggravating her already deteriorating conduct. The cumulative behaviour of Workman, according to Management, repeated warnings, misconduct, breach of disciplinary rules, aggressive and abusive behaviour towards her senior, refusal to follow grievance redressal procedure and unauthorized absence from duty clearly demonstrates that she had no intention to maintain discipline or respect for Company's policy and hence, in order to maintain decorum and discipline within the workplace, to protect the dignity of senior staff and carry a healthy environment for all employees, Management was left with no alternative but to lawfully terminate the services of Workman.
9. Under the aforesaid circumstances, according to Management, services of Workman were lawfully terminated by Management strictly in consonance with the Company's rules, applicable labour laws and principles of natural justice after considering her past conduct and repeated indiscipline. Management has thus prayed for dismissal of present claim of LIR No. 763/2025 Deepa Shukla Vs. M/s. Overseas Courier Service (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Award dated 19.02.2026 Page 6 of 34Workman with costs, in as much as, the same has been filed by Workman with the sole intention of pressurizing the Management and to seek undue benefits.
10. Thereafter, on the basis of pleadings of parties, following issues were settled by this Court vide order dated 03.12.2025:-
(i) Whether the services of the Workman have been terminated by Management vide email dated 04.09.2024 illegally and/or unjustifiably? OPW
(ii) Whether the services of the Workman have been lawfully terminated by the Management on 04.09.2024 as per company rule, applicable labour laws and principles of natural justice considering her past conduct and repeated indiscipline as mentioned in the written statement? OPM
(iii) Relief, if any.
11. Workman has thereafter examined herself as WW-1 i.e. as the sole witness in support of her case and tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.WW1/A along with following documents:
(i) Mark-WW1/1: Copy of offer letter dated
09.05.2018.
(ii) Mark-WW1/2: Copy of her appointment letter dated 26.06.2018.
(iii) Mark-WW1/3: Copy of confirmation letter dated 20.02.2019 issued by Management in the name of Workman.
(iv) Mark-WW1/4: Copy of her promotion-cum-
increment letter dated 13.04.2021.
(v) Mark-WW1/5: Copy of increment letter
01.05.2022.
(vi) Mark-WW1/6: Copy of increment letter dated 01.05.2023.
(vii) Mark-WW1/7: Copy of increment letter dated LIR No. 763/2025 Deepa Shukla Vs. M/s. Overseas Courier Service (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Award dated 19.02.2026 Page 7 of 3401.07.2024.
(viii) Mark-WW1/8(colly): Copy of whatsapp chat between her and the Managing Director of the Management.
(ix) Mark-WW1/9(colly): Copy of whatsapp chat between her and Mr. Mayank Bhardwaj, HR Manager of the Management .
(x) Mark-WW1/10: Copy of email dated 04.09.2024 of Mr. Mayank Bhardwaj, HR Manager of Management terminating her services.
(xi) Ex.WW1/11(colly): Office copy of legal notice dated 07.09.2024 along with postal receipt regarding dispatch thereof to the Management.
(xii) Ex.WW1/12: Reply dated 23.09.2024 of the Management to her demand notice dated 07.09.2024.
(xiii) Mark-WW1/13: Copy of her statement of claim filed against the Management before Dy. Labour Commissioner, Kapashera.
12. Workman was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for Management. During her cross-examination, she was confronted with following documents:
(i) Mark-WW1/M1: Copy of warning letter dated 25.05.2022 received by Workman from the Management.
(ii) Mark-WW1/M2: Copy of another warning letter dated 13.06.2022 received by Workman from the Management.
(iii) Mark-WW1/M3: Copy of apology letter dated 07.06.2022 signed by Workman.
13. 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 03.01.2026.
LIR No. 763/2025Deepa Shukla Vs. M/s. Overseas Courier Service (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Award dated 19.02.2026 Page 8 of 3414. Management has thereafter examined its Manager (HQ), HR & Accounts, Sh. Mayank Bhardwaj as MW-1 i.e. as the sole witness in support of its case, who has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.MW1/A. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. AR of Workman. No other witness was examined on behalf of Management despite opportunity and hence, Management's evidence was closed vide order dated 24.01.2026.
15. Final arguments on behalf of Management were thereafter heard on 31.01.2026, whereas, final arguments on behalf of Workman were heard on 05.02.2026. Besides, written submissions have also been filed on behalf of both the parties on 31.01.2026.
16. It is submitted by Ld. AR of Workman that Management has nowhere disputed that the Claimant was employed with Management initially as an Executive, Customer Service and thereafter, as a Senior Executive, Customer Service since the year 2018 until 04.09.2024 against last drawn monthly wages of Rs. 30,874/- and her services were eventually terminated by Management vide an email dated 04.09.2024. The only issue, according to him, which arises for consideration of this Court is whether the termination of services of Workman by Management vide email dated 04.09.2024 is legal, justified and in consonance with law. Initial onus to prove that her services were illegally terminated by the Management in gross violation of principles of natural justice, according to him, has been duly discharged by Workman by way of her uncontroverted testimony in the form of affidavit Ex.WW1/A which is duly corroborated by the documents tendered by her in her evidence.
LIR No. 763/2025Deepa Shukla Vs. M/s. Overseas Courier Service (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Award dated 19.02.2026 Page 9 of 3417. A bare perusal of documents tendered by Workman in her evidence, he submits, shows that throughout her employment with Management, Workman had unblemished record of promotions and increments and her credit worthiness could not be shaken despite her lengthy cross-examination. He submits that through her uncontroverted testimony, Workman has been able to prove that on 30.08.2024, she was not only verbally abused and publicly humiliated in the presence of others, but, was also forcibly ousted from her office by her senior Ms. Sangeeta thereby creating a hostile environment and that it was because of the aforesaid reason that she was constrained to approach the Managing Director of Management via whatsapp on the same day, since, she had lack of faith in her HR Manager due to his past record of delays, biased handling and extracting forced apologies under threat.
18. The response dated 02.09.2024 of HR Manager of Management to the grievance/issue raised by Workman through whatsapp with Managing Director of Management, according to him, is a clear acknowledgment of the ongoing communication and pursuit of Workman for the redressal of her grievance, however, the HR Manager in her termination email dated 04.09.2024 has feigned ignorance of any intimation/ information, falsely claiming unauthorized absence of workman from her duties on 31.08.2024 to 04.09.2024 while treating the said unauthorized absence an abandonment under the company policy and appointment letter. The aforesaid stand of Management, according to Ld. AR of Workman, is a blatant contradiction, in as much as, HR Manager was in active contact of Workman on LIR No. 763/2025 Deepa Shukla Vs. M/s. Overseas Courier Service (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Award dated 19.02.2026 Page 10 of 3402.09.2024 i.e. on one of the dates when the Workman was allegedly absent from her duties and has suppressed her grievance, while, retroactively labeling the period as willful absence so as to justify her immediate termination without any show cause notice, charge-sheet, inquiry or personal hearing.
19. The aforesaid internal contradiction in the Management's owned document, according to him, exposes a malafide intention on the part of HR Manager, who knew that the Workman was seeking redressal of her grievance in respect of the hostile incident dated 30.08.2024 via higher authority, however, he has not only actively warned her against the same, but, also used the very period of suppressed communication to manufacture unauthorized absence as a pretext for her ouster. The aforesaid abrupt and blunt ouster of Workman without any notice or wages in lieu thereof, according to Ld. AR for Workman has caused exceptional hardship to Workman, in as much as, she has undergone several difficulties in securing alternative employment, more so, due to stigma from the email, wherein, she had been labeled as guilty of misconduct, derogatory language, blatant violation, repeated violations, negligence and disregard for policies of her employer. Such stigmatizing characterization, according to Ld. AR of Workman, severely damages future job prospects of Workman without her fault, leading to huge loss of opportunity, prolonged unemployment, financial distress and mental harassment.
20. On the contrary, according to him, Management has failed to adduce any evidence to prove that termination of services of Workman by Management, vide email dated 04.09.2024, was LIR No. 763/2025 Deepa Shukla Vs. M/s. Overseas Courier Service (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Award dated 19.02.2026 Page 11 of 34lawful. He submits that the sole witness examined on behalf of Management i.e. MW-1 lacked legal authority to represent or depose on behalf of Management for want of any power of attorney or board resolution authorizing him to represent and depose on behalf of Management. Onus to prove lawful termination of services of Workman vide email dated 04.09.2024, according to Ld. AR for Workman was essentially upon Management in view of Sections 101, 103 and 106 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, however, Management has failed to discharge the aforesaid burden, in as much as, testimony of MW-1 does not exist in the eyes of law and an adverse inference needs to be drawn against the Management in terms of Section 114 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 for non examination of competent witness.
21. Even otherwise, according to Ld. AR of Workman, MW-1 was admittedly not an eye witness to the incident dated 30.08.2024 and his entire knowledge was based solely on alleged verbal communications received by him from Ms. Sangeeta and others. Testimony of MW-1, according to him, is thus pure hearsay and hence, not relevant. Relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in D.K. Yadav Vs. J.M.A. Industries Ltd. (1993) 3 SCC 259, he submits, termination of Workman on the ground of misconduct without domestic inquiry violates audi alteram partem and principles of natural justice and hence, this Court is empowered to set aside the dismissal of services of Workman by Management in exercise of its powers U/s 11A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
22. So far as, reference by Management in the termination e-
LIR No. 763/2025Deepa Shukla Vs. M/s. Overseas Courier Service (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Award dated 19.02.2026 Page 12 of 34mail to the past conduct of Workman is concerned, Ld. AR of Workman submits that the past conduct of Workman stood condoned by Management on account of her continuous service, promotion and increments after the year 2022. Allegation of unauthorized absence of workman from her duties w.e.f. 31.08.2024 to 03.09.2024, according to him, are not only contradictory to the acknowledgment dated 02.09.2024 of the HR representative of Management through whatsapp, but, the Management has also failed to consider that the absence of a Workman from her duties had a justifiable reason, the same being on account of hostile environment at work place and pendency of her grievance with Management. Number of days, within which services of Workman have been terminated by Management, after she had raised a grievance with Managing Director of Management, according to him, establishes the malafide intention of Management to retaliate/ victimize the Workman for raising her grievance which amounts to unfair labour practice within the meaning of 5th Schedule appended to Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
23. Under the aforesaid circumstances, according to Ld. AR of Workman, Workman has been able to prove illegal termination of her services by Management w.e.f. 04.09.2024 and hence, in view of authoritative pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Deepali Gundu Sarvase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (2013)10 SCC 324, she is entitled for her reinstatement with full back wages, continuity of service and other consequential benefits and no exceptional circumstances exist in the present case warranting denial of the aforesaid reliefs LIR No. 763/2025 Deepa Shukla Vs. M/s. Overseas Courier Service (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Award dated 19.02.2026 Page 13 of 34to the Workman. He has thus prayed for an award in favour of Workman in terms of prayer made by Workman in her statement of claim while also relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State Bank of Travancore v. M/s Kingston Computers (I) Pvt. Ltd. (2011)11 SCC 524.
24. Ld. Counsel for Management, on the other hand, submits that the whole claim of Workman is absolutely false, misleading and based on suppression of material facts, in as much as, Workman has tried to project her lawful termination on account of continued misconduct, indiscipline and insubordination as illegal retrenchment despite the fact that Management has terminated her services only after repeated opportunities while acting fairly, patiently and strictly as per law. He submits that there is no dispute between the parties to the present claim that the Workman, who was appointed by Management on 09.05.2018 and was subsequently promoted to the post of Senior Executive (Customer Service) of the Management in the year 2021, had been issued various warning letters by Management, in response whereto, she had submitted a written apology. He submits that there is also no dispute about the fact that Workman had remained unauthorizedly absent from her duties without any prior approval/permission during 31.08.2024 to 03.09.2024.
25. Despite the past misconduct of the Workman, whereby, she was found manipulating her attendance record, which is a serious act of indulging in dishonesty leading to issuance of warning letters dated 25.05.2022 and 13.06.2022 by Management and subsequent admission of Workman of her misconduct and submission of a written apology dated 07.06.2022, according to LIR No. 763/2025 Deepa Shukla Vs. M/s. Overseas Courier Service (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Award dated 19.02.2026 Page 14 of 34Ld. Counsel for Management, Management did not terminate her services. The aforesaid act of Management, according to him, clearly proves that Management followed a reformative approach and not a punitive one, however, instead of improving her conduct, Workman has once again indulged in serious misconduct on 30.08.2024 and had used the abusive and aggressive language against her senior Ms. Sangeeta in front of her staff members which is subversive of discipline and created hostile working environment.
26. It is further submitted by Ld. Counsel for Management that abusing a senior at the work place is one of the gravest form of misconduct as per labour law and since discipline is backbone of any organization, Management was constrained to terminate the services of Workman, more so, when Workman had failed to follow the hierarchy in seeking redressal of her alleged grievance, in as much as, she has chosen to directly approach the Managing Director of Management, while, by-passing the HR Department of Management. He submits that there is no dispute between the parties that the Workman had remained absent for a continuous period of three days without any prior permission or intimation, which, once again, is an act of misconduct on her part as recognized under the standing orders and service jurisprudence.
27. It is thus submitted by Ld. Counsel for Management that services of workman were never terminated by Management illegally or mechanically. Rather, according to him, services of Workman were lawfully terminated by Management after due consideration of her past misconduct, written apology and failure to mend her ways despite earlier warnings. In any case, according LIR No. 763/2025 Deepa Shukla Vs. M/s. Overseas Courier Service (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Award dated 19.02.2026 Page 15 of 34to him, decision to terminate the services of a Workman is within the domain of Management being the employer as well as disciplinary authority over the Workman and a Labour Court can not sit in appeal over the decision taken by the Management exept where the punishment is found by the labour court to be shockingly disproptionate to the charge against Workman, more so, when no formal rules of evidence are applicable qua proof of misconduct of an employee during an inquiry or during the proceedings before the Labour Court and where the unauthorized absence, abusive behaviour of Workman and past misconduct are not only proved by Management before this Court but are also admitted by Workman. In support of his aforesaid submissions, Ld. Counsel for Management has relied upon following judgments:
(i) U.P. SRTC v. Subhash Chandra Sharma (2000)3 SCC 324.
(ii) State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh, AIR 1977 SC 1512.
(iii) Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. N.B. Narawade (2005) 3 SCC 134.
(iv) L&T Komatsu Ltd. N. Udayakumar (2008) 1 SCC
224.
28. Ld. Counsel for Management has thus prayed for dismissal of present claim of Workman with heavy cost, while, alleging that termination on account of misconduct does not fall within the definition of retrenchment and hence, there is no violation by Management of the provisions of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
29. I have heard the submissions made on behalf of the parties LIR No. 763/2025 Deepa Shukla Vs. M/s. Overseas Courier Service (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Award dated 19.02.2026 Page 16 of 34and have carefully perused the material available on record. My issue-wise findings, on the issues settled by this Court vide order dated 03.12.2025, are as follows:
Issue no. (i): Whether the services of the Workman have been terminated by Management vide email dated 04.09.2024 illegally and/or unjustifiably? OPW
30. Onus to prove the aforesaid issue was upon the Workman. A perusal of record reveals that the services of Workman in the present case were terminated by Management vide an email dated 04.09.2024, purportedly, on account of several acts of grave misconduct of Workman. One of the reasons for termination of services of Workman, as per aforesaid e-mail, is that on 30.08.2024, during visit from Japanese Expatriates, she had disregarded the direction of her senior Ms. Sangeeta and engaged in confrontation with her, while, using derogatory language to demean her in blatant violation of Management policy and thereafter left office before working hours without obtaining prior approval or providing any reason therefor.
31. Another reason for termination of services given in the aforesaid e-mail is the decision of Management to treat the unauthorized absence of Workman from her duty on 31.08.2024, 02.09.2024, 03.09.2024 and 04.09.2024 as abandonment of her services in terms of appointment letter dated 26.06.2018. In its aforesaid e-mail, Management has also pointed-out two similar infractions on the part of Workman, for which, she had already been served with two warning letters dated 25.05.2022 and 13.06.2022.
LIR No. 763/2025Deepa Shukla Vs. M/s. Overseas Courier Service (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Award dated 19.02.2026 Page 17 of 3432. Thus, from a bare perusal of aforesaid email, it is apparent that the services of Workman were terminated by Management by way of punishment on account of various charges of misconduct and hence, the termination of Workman does not fall within the definition of retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Rather, her termination vide e-mail dated 04.09.2024 was a stigmatic termination.
33. Therefore, though, I find force in the submission made on behalf of Management that Management was not required to comply with the provisions of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which, prescribes certain pre-conditions for lawful retrenchment of a Workman by her/her employer, however, it is equally well-settled that in case of a stigmatic termination by way of punishment, Management is expected to conduct an inquiry into the allegations against Workman, strictly in consonance with the principles of natural justice, prior to termination of his/her services. Termination of services of a Workman by his/her employer by way of punishment without holding a proper inquiry in consonance with principles of natural justice shall render the termination order to be illegal, though, even in such a case, the Labour Court shall not direct reinstatement of Workman, with or without back wages, without first giving an opportunity to Management to prove the misconduct of Workman before the Court and to Workman to controvert the said evidence.
34. However, in such a case, the issue about the merits of impugned order of dismissal or discharge is at large before the Court and the Court, on the evidence adduced before it, has to decide for itself whether the misconduct alleged is proved. In LIR No. 763/2025 Deepa Shukla Vs. M/s. Overseas Courier Service (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Award dated 19.02.2026 Page 18 of 34such a case i.e. in a case where termination of a Workman by way of punishment is not preceded by any inquiry, Management can't be allowed to take a plea that such an exercise of appreciation of evidence and interference with punishment of dismissal amounts to exercise of Managerial functions by the Court which is impermissible. While taking the aforesaid view, I derive support from the following observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Workmen v. Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd., (1973)1 SCC 813:
"32. From those decisions, the following principles broadly emerge:
(1) The right to take disciplinary action and to decide upon the quantum of punishment are mainly managerial functions, but if a dispute is referred to a Tribunal, the latter has power to see if action of the employer is justified. (2) Before imposing the punishment, an employer is expected to conduct a proper enquiry in accordance with the provisions of the Standing Orders, if applicable, and principles of natural justice. The enquiry should not be an empty formality. (3) When a proper enquiry has been held by an employer, and the finding of misconduct is a plausible conclusion flowing from the evidence, adduced at the said enquiry, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to sit in judgment over the decision of the employer as an appellate body. The interference with the decision of the employer will be justified only when the findings arrived at in the enquiry are perverse or the management is guilty of victimisation, unfair labour practice or mala fide.
(4) Even if no enquiry has been held by an employer or if the enquiry held by him is found to be defective, the Tribunal in order to satisfy itself about the legality and validity of the order, had to give an opportunity to the employer and employee to adduce evidence before it. It is open to the employer to adduce evidence for the first time justifying his action, and it is open to the employee to adduce evidence contra.
(5) The effect of an employer not holding an enquiry is that LIR No. 763/2025 Deepa Shukla Vs. M/s. Overseas Courier Service (India) Pvt. Ltd.Award dated 19.02.2026 Page 19 of 34
the Tribunal would not have to consider only whether there was a prima facie case. On the other hand, the issue about the merits of the impugned order of dismissal or discharge is at large before the Tribunal and the latter, on the evidence adduced before it, has to decide for itself whether the misconduct alleged is proved. In such cases, the point about the exercise of managerial functions does not arise at all. A case of defective enquiry stands on the same footing as no enquiry.
(6) The Tribunal gets jurisdiction to consider the evidence placed before it for the first time in justification of the action taken only, if no enquiry has been held or after the enquiry conducted by an employer is found to be defective. (7) It has never been recognised that the Tribunal should straightaway, without anything more, direct reinstatement of a dismissed or discharged employee, once it is found that no domestic enquiry has been held or the said enquiry is found to be defective.
(8) An employer, who wants to avail himself of the opportunity of adducing evidence for the first time before the Tribunal to justify his action, should ask for it at the appropriate stage. If such an opportunity is asked for, the Tribunal has no power to refuse. The giving of an opportunity to an employer to adduce evidence for the first time before the Tribunal is in the interest of both the management and the employee and to enable the Tribunal itself to be satisfied about the alleged misconduct.
(9) Once the misconduct is proved either in the enquiry conducted by an employer or by the evidence placed before a Tribunal for the first time, punishment imposed cannot be interfered with by the Tribunal except in cases where the punishment is so harsh as to suggest victimisation. (10) In a particular case, after setting aside the order of dismissal, whether a workman should be reinstated or paid compensation is, as held by this Court in Management of Panitole Tea Estate v. Workmens [(1971) 1 SCC 742] within the judicial decision of a Labour Court or Tribunal." (Emphasis mine)
35. In the case in hand, admittedly, services of Workman were terminated by Management by way of punishment, that too, without holding any domestic inquiry into the charges of LIR No. 763/2025 Deepa Shukla Vs. M/s. Overseas Courier Service (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Award dated 19.02.2026 Page 20 of 34misconduct contained in termination e-mail dated 04.09.2024, in gross violation of principles of natural justice. In fact, not even a show cause notice, seeking an explanation from Workman to the charges leveled against her, was served by Management upon the Workman prior to termination of her services. Thus, despite the fact that the said termination order dated 04.09.2024 of the Management is apparently illegal, in view of authoritative pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Firestone's case (supra), in order to justify the said termination order, Management could have led evidence before this Court to prove the charges contained in termination order.
36. In the case in hand, Management has sought to prove the charges of misconduct against Workman by examining its Manager (HQ), HR and Accounts, as MW-1 i.e. as the sole witness in support of its case, who has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.MW1/1. In his affidavit, MW-1 has deposed that the Workman was appointed by Management as an Executive (Customer Service) on 26.06.2018 and based on her performance, she was subsequently promoted to the post of Senior Executive (Customer Service) on 13.04.2021. However, after sometime, according to him, she started indulging in acts of misconduct, negligence, non-compliance with company's policies and insubordination, while, having been found manipulating her attendance records, for which, a feed back-cum-warning letter dated 25.05.2022 was issued to her.
37. It has further been deposed by him that after receipt of warning letter dated 25.05.2022, Workman had tendered her written apology while admitting her mistake, however, she LIR No. 763/2025 Deepa Shukla Vs. M/s. Overseas Courier Service (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Award dated 19.02.2026 Page 21 of 34continued her irresponsible conduct leading to issuance of another warning letter dated 13.06.0222 by the Management. MW-1 has further deposed that the Workman has however failed to improve her behaviour and on 30.08.2024, committed gross misconduct by verbally abusing and misbehaving with her senior Ms. Sangeeta, Assistant Manager, during office working hours, in a loud and aggressive manner in the presence of other employees, thereby, creating hostile working environment. Thereafter, according to MW-1, instead of following internal grievance redressal mechanism, Workman had falsely accused her senior and directly contacted the Director of the Management company, while, bypassing the HR Department of Management and upon contact by HR Representative showed complete lack of faith in grievance mechanism of Management by stating that "I know you will do nothing in my favour."
39. He has further deposed that the Workman has thereafter remained absent from her duties for three consecutive days, without any prior intimation or approval, amounting to unauthorized absence and willful insubordination and under the aforesaid circumstances, looking into cumulative conduct of Workman, Management was left with no alternative, but to terminate her services strictly in accordance with company's rules, applicable laws and principles of natural justice, so as to maintain discipline and workplace harmony.
40. The last statement of MW-1, as referred to herein above, in my considered opinion, is apparently false, in as much as, it has already been observed herein above that while terminating the services of Workman, Management has failed to follow the LIR No. 763/2025 Deepa Shukla Vs. M/s. Overseas Courier Service (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Award dated 19.02.2026 Page 22 of 34applicable labour laws, since, no domestic inquiry was ever conducted by Management into the aforesaid allegations against the Workman prior to termination of her services and her services were terminated by Management in gross violation of principles of natural justice.
41. Be that as it may, MW-1 was cross-examined at length by Ld. AR of Workman. During his cross-examination, MW-1 could not prove on record that he had ever been authorized by Management either to represent the Management before this Court or depose before this Court on behalf of Management. Further, though, in his evidence by way of affidavit as well as during his cross-examination, MW-1 has deposed that his deposition in the affidavit Ex.MW1/A, about the incident dated 30.08.2024, was based on his personal knowledge, however, he has admitted that the alleged fight between Workman and her Assistant Manager Ms. Sangeeta on 30.08.2024 was not personally seen by him. It was further admitted by him that he had come to know about incident dated 30.08.2024 from Ms. Sangeeta and other staff of Management namely Priyanka and Sarita, though, subsequently he has stated that Priyanka was not present at the time of the incident.
42. Thus, the testimony of MW-1 in his affidavit as well as during his cross-examination dated 24.01.2026, qua the incident dated 30.08.2024, can't be said to have been based on his personal knowledge. Moreover, admittedly, he has neither recorded the statements of Ms. Sangeeta or Ms. Sarita, qua the incident dated 30.08.2024, in writing, nor, had he given any opportunity to Workman to confront Ms. Sangeeta or Ms. Sarita LIR No. 763/2025 Deepa Shukla Vs. M/s. Overseas Courier Service (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Award dated 19.02.2026 Page 23 of 34about their verbal statements. Management has even failed to examine Ms. Sangeeta or Ms. Sarita before this Court, to prove the alleged misconduct of Workman at her workplace on 30.08.2024, for reasons best known to the Management and had examined Sh. Mayank Bhardwaj as the sole witness in support of its case despite knowing fully well that the Workman in her whatsapp message dated 30.08.2024 to the Managing Director of Management company had already expressed her lack of faith in Mr. Mayank Bhardwaj.
43. During his cross-examination dated 24.01.2026, MW-1 has further admitted that since the date, MW-1 had joined the Management i.e. since 01.11.2021, he knows both the Workman as well as Ms. Sangeeta and did not receive any complaints against Workman from Ms. Sangeeta, though, the Workman had approached her with several complaints, which, were never reduced by him in writing. He has further admitted that during her employment with Management, Workman had not only been promoted but she had also been awarded salary increments from time to time.
44. It is sought to be submitted by Ld. Counsel for Management that since the Management has given all due promotions as well as salary increments to Workman during her employment with Management, it shows the bonafide of Management that the Management does not act in retaliation or for victimization of its employees, rather, the Management has always followed merit based policies. I do not find any force in the aforesaid submission made on behalf of Management, in as much as, in my considered opinion, the aforesaid admission on the part of MW-1 during his LIR No. 763/2025 Deepa Shukla Vs. M/s. Overseas Courier Service (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Award dated 19.02.2026 Page 24 of 34cross-examination is sufficient to negate the allegations of Management against the Workman about her past misconduct.
45. No doubt, during her cross-examination, Workman has admitted having received two warning letters dated 25.05.2022 and 13.06.2022 from the Management and having signed the apology letter Mark-WW1/M3, however, she has duly explained the circumstances under which the said apology letter was signed by her, despite her denial of all the allegations of Management in first warning letter dated 25.05.2022 regarding manipulation of her attendance record, in her reply e-mail. Admittedly, no domestic inquiry into the allegations contained in warning letters dated 25.05.2022 and 13.06.2022 was ever conducted by Management, nor, the witnesses to the aforesaid incident have been examined by Management before this Court to prove that the Workman had earlier been guilty of manipulation of her attendance record.
46. So far as the charge for unauthorized absence of Workman from her duties on 31.08.2024, 02.09.2024, 03.09.2024 and 04.09.2024, without any prior intimation or approval, is concerned, no doubt, Workman has admitted that she had remained absent from her duty on the aforesaid dates, however, a perusal of the record reveals that admittedly on the very date of the alleged incident i.e. on 30.08.2024, Workman had approached the Managing Director of Management through a whatsapp message highlighting her grievance qua the conduct of her immediate superior Ms. Sangeeta, which, was duly acknowledged by the Managing Director of Management, while, seeking some time from the Workman to resolve the aforesaid issue. Workman LIR No. 763/2025 Deepa Shukla Vs. M/s. Overseas Courier Service (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Award dated 19.02.2026 Page 25 of 34has thereafter followed up the aforesaid issue with the Managing Director of Management through another whatsapp message dated 02.09.2024 duly apprising him of the fact that she was waiting for his directions on the issue, raised by her vide whatsapp message dated 30.08.2024, while, simultaneously apprising him of the fact that she had not been attending the office since 31.08.2024 because Ms. Sangeeta had forcibly told her to pick-up her belongings and leave the office.
47. It was only thereafter that Mr. Mayank Bhardwaj, HR Executive of the Management had contacted the Workman through whatsapp message dated 02.09.2024, apprising her of the fact that she could no longer bother the Managing Director of Management and that if she wanted to discuss anything, she should send text messages to him. A bare perusal of the aforesaid whatsapp message of MW-1 shows that through the said message, he had neither required the Workman to resume her duties with Management, nor, had he called for any explanation from Workman for her alleged unauthorized absence form her duty. He has not even required the Workman to meet him personally for resolution of her grievance. MW-1 in the aforesaid message had only instructed her to discuss the issue through text message.
48. Under the aforesaid circumstances, by no stretch of imagination, absence of Workman from her duties atleast since 02.09.2024 can't be considered to be without any intimation. Further, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, omission on the part of Management to require her to report back on her duty despite receipt of whatsapp message dated LIR No. 763/2025 Deepa Shukla Vs. M/s. Overseas Courier Service (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Award dated 19.02.2026 Page 26 of 3402.09.2024 from Workman amounts to implicit approval on the part of Management for her absence until resolution of her grievance by the Management as per the assurance of its Managing Director, in as much as, if the Management was thinking of considering the absence of Workman as unauthorized so as to contitute misconduct leading to termination of her services, Management was duty bound to serve a notice of Workman requiring her to resume her duties with Management with immediate effect.
49. Under the aforesaid circumstances, in my considered opinion, not only the services of Workman were terminated by Management in gross violation of principles of natural justice, rendering the said termination illegal, but, Management has also failed to prove misconduct of Workman by leading any cogent evidence even before this Court. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in my considered opinion, Workman has been able to discharge her onus to prove that her services were terminated by Management on 04.09.2024 illegally and unjustifiably in gross violation of principles of natural justice.
50. Issue no. (i) is thus decided in favor of Workman.
Issue no. (ii): Whether the services of the Workman have been lawfully terminated by the Management on 04.09.2024 as per company rule, applicable labour laws and principles of natural justice considering her past conduct and repeated indiscipline as mentioned in the written statement? OPM
51. In view of the detailed discussion held under issue no. (i) herein above, in my considered opinion, Management has failed to discharge its onus to prove issue no. (ii).
LIR No. 763/2025Deepa Shukla Vs. M/s. Overseas Courier Service (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Award dated 19.02.2026 Page 27 of 3452. Issue no. (ii) is thus decided against the Management.
Issue no. (iii): Relief, if any.
53. It is submitted by Ld. AR for Workman that considering illegal termination of her services by the Management vide email dated 04.09.2024, though, Workman is entitled to her reinstatement with full back wages, continuity of service and other consequential benefits, however, in case, Court is not inclined to order reinstatement of Workman with full back wages, she must be awarded adequate compensation on account of mental harassment and litigation cost, along with, her unpaid salary, bonus, leave encashment, gratuity and PF benefits, while, directing the Management to issue a relieving letter to the Workman without any adverse remarks.
54. In view of findings of this Court, qua illegal termination of services of Workman by the Management by way of punishment in gross violation of principles of natural justice and omission on the part of Management to prove her misconduct before this Court, the termination order of the Workman dated 04.09.2024 is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed. Consequentially, Workman should have been entitled to her reinstatement with continuity of service and other consequential benefits, besides full back wages, provided, she had pleaded or proved herself to be wholly unemployed since the date of illegal termination of her services. However, as per averments made by Workman in her statement of claim as well as evidence by way of affidavit, a hostile work atmosphere has been created by her superior Ms. Sangeeta at her workplace and she lacks faith in the grievance LIR No. 763/2025 Deepa Shukla Vs. M/s. Overseas Courier Service (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Award dated 19.02.2026 Page 28 of 34redressal mechanism of Management for resolution of her grievances. On the contrary, similar allegations are leveled by Management against the Workman in its pleadings as well as evidence.
55. The apprehension of Workman that HR department of Management was not going to address her grievances, to some extent, has also been proved to be real from various facts elicited during cross-examination of MW-1, wherein, MW-1 was found justifying the decision of Management to terminate the services of Workman on one ground or the other without any supporting material. The Workman has already raised her grievance up-to the highest level in the Management company, however, she was advised not to approach the higher Management for resolution of her grievance and was illegally terminated from her services without following principles of natural justice.
56. Thus, considering the acrimonious relations between the parties, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered opinion, any direction of this Court for reinstatement of Workman into her job with Management shall invite further litigation and hence shall not be in the interest of industrial peace and harmony.
57. So far as the relief of back wages is concerned, both the pleadings as well as evidence by way of affidavit of Workman are conspicuously silent about the fact qua the status of employment of Workman since the date of illegal termination of her services by Management and hence, in my considered opinion, no order for grant of back wages can be passed by this Court in favour of LIR No. 763/2025 Deepa Shukla Vs. M/s. Overseas Courier Service (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Award dated 19.02.2026 Page 29 of 34Workman.
58. However, considering the fact that the services of Workman were illegally terminated by Management, by way of punishment, in gross violation of principles of natural justice, affecting the prospect of future employment of Workman, in my considered opinion, Workman is not only entitled to a relieving-cum experience certificate to be issued by Management in her name without any adverse remarks, besides, adequate compensation in lieu of her reinstatement and on account of her mental harassment and cost of litigation.
59. Before parting with the order, I would like to deal with the judgments relied upon by Ld. Counsel for Management. There can be no dispute about about the proposition of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in U.P. SRTC v. Subhash Chandra Sharma (2000)3 SCC 324 that ordinarily a Labour Court should not interfere with the punishment of discharge or dismissal of a workman by the management in exercise of its powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 unless the said punishment is found by the Court to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges against the Workman, however, Ld. Counsel for Management can't be allowed to derive any assistance from the aforesaid observations, in as much as, the said observations were made in a case, wherein, Workman was dismissed by the Management after all the charges were duly proved against him during a departmental inquiry, which, was upheld by the Labour Court.
60. In the case in hand, it has already been observed herein LIR No. 763/2025 Deepa Shukla Vs. M/s. Overseas Courier Service (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Award dated 19.02.2026 Page 30 of 34above that not only, no inquiry into the charges of misconduct of the Workman was conducted by Management prior to termination of her services, but, Management has also failed to prove her misconduct even before this Court by leading any cogent evidence.
61. Similar is the case with judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. N.B. Narawade (2005)3 SCC
134. Even in the said case, interference by the Labour Court, with the punishment of dismissal of workman, was frowned upon by Hon'ble Supreme Court in view of consistent finding of all the Courts below that the charges of misconduct against the Workman were duly proved during an inquiry conducted by the Management pursuant to the directions of Labour Court.
62. Management can not be allowed to derive any assistance even from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh, AIR 1977 SC 1512, in as much as, even in the aforesaid case, services of Workman were terminated by Management after a proper inquiry. It was under the aforesaid circumstances that Hon'ble Supreme Court held that sophisticated rules of evidence are not applicable to inquiry proceedings. In fact, in the aforesaid judgment, considering the final order passed by the Management, it was held to be a case of termination simpliciter and not a termination by way of punishment (stigmatic termination) and hence Management was directed to pay to the Workman all his statutory dues as per applicable laws, while, treating his termination as termination simpliciter, which direction, in my humble opinion, required the Management in the aforesaid case to pay, inter-alia, service compensation in terms of LIR No. 763/2025 Deepa Shukla Vs. M/s. Overseas Courier Service (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Award dated 19.02.2026 Page 31 of 34Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On the other hand, in the present case, it has already been observed herein above that termination of services of Workman by the Management, vide e- mail dated 04.09.2024, by no stretch of imagination, can be considered to be termination simpliciter and is rather a stigmatic termination by way of punishment without any inquiry in gross violation of principles of natural justice.
63. Similar is the case with judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in L&T Komatsu Ltd. N. Udayakumar (2008) 1 SCC 224 . Even in the aforesaid judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court has been dealing with a case, wherein, misconduct of Workman was held to have been duly proved during a departmental inquiry and still the punishment was interfered by the Courts below.
64. Thus, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, in my considered opinion, award of lumpsum compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) in favour of Workman, in lieu of her reinstatement, mental harassment and litigation charges, shall meet the ends of justice, besides, a direction to Management to issue a relieving-cum-experience certificate in the name of Workman without any adverse remarks.
65. Management is thus directed to pay a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) to the Workman, in lieu of her reinstatement, mental harassment and litigation charges within 15 days from the date of publication of this award without affecting her right to seek recovery of her dues, if any, on account of unpaid salary, bonus, leave encashment, gratuity and PF benefits as per law before the LIR No. 763/2025 Deepa Shukla Vs. M/s. Overseas Courier Service (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Award dated 19.02.2026 Page 32 of 34competent authority/forum having jurisdiction in the matter. Failure of the Management to make the aforesaid payment within the stipulated period shall make the Management liable to pay the aforesaid amount alongwith simple interest @9% per annum from the date of this award until the date of actual payment.
66. Besides, Management is also directed to issue a relieving- cum-experience certificate in the name of Workman without any adverse remarks within fifteen days from the date of publication of this award, failing which, the Management shall be liable to pay a penalty @ Rs. 1,000/- per day for each day's delay in issuance thereof.
67. Present claim of Workman, filed pursuant to reference dated 16.09.2025, is thus partly allowed and reference dated 16.09.2025 is answered in the following terms:
"Workman Ms. Deepa Shukla D/o Sh. Narender Kumar Shukla has proved that her services were terminated by Management illegally and unjustifiably vide e-mail dated 04.09.2024 and hence her termination order is hereby quashed. Management is thus directed to pay a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) to the Workman, in lieu of her reinstatement, mental harassment and litigation charges within 15 days from the date of publication of this award without affecting her right to seek recovery of her dues, if any, on account of unpaid salary, bonus, leave encashment, gratuity and PF benefits as per law before the competent authority/forum having jurisdiction in the matter. Failure of the Management to make the aforesaid payment within the stipulated period shall make the Management liable to pay the aforesaid amount alongwith simple interest @9% per annum from the date of this award until the date of actual payment. Besides, Management is also directed to issue a LIR No. 763/2025 Deepa Shukla Vs. M/s. Overseas Courier Service (India) Pvt. Ltd.Award dated 19.02.2026 Page 33 of 34
relieving-cum-experience certificate in the name of Workman without any adverse remarks within fifteen days from the date of publication of this award, failing which, the Management shall be liable to pay a penalty @ Rs. 1,000/- per day for each day's delay in issuance thereof."
68. Ordered accordingly.
69. 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 19th day of February, 2026. This award consists of 34 number of signed pages. ARUN by Digitally signed ARUN KUMAR GARG KUMAR Date:
2026.02.19 GARG 16:24:47 +0530 (ARUN KUMAR GARG) Presiding Officer Labour Court-III Rouse Avenue Court, New Delhi LIR No. 763/2025 Deepa Shukla Vs. M/s. Overseas Courier Service (India) Pvt. Ltd.Award dated 19.02.2026 Page 34 of 34