Delhi District Court
Krishan Pal vs M/S B.S.E.S. Yamuna Power Ltd on 29 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ARUN GOEL,
DISTRICT JUDGE:PRESIDING OFFICER :
LABOUR COURT - X: RADC:
NEW DELHI
LIR No. 1996/2019
Krishan Pal,
S/o Sh. Ugarsen,
House No. 33A,
Chanchal Park, Bakkarwala,
West Delhi,
Delhi-110041
Through
Bharatiya Engineering and
General Labour Union (Regd. 3606) Office
Bharat Mill, Charkhi Gate, Plot No.1,
Near D-Block, Karamapura,
New Delhi-110015
...... WORKMAN
versus
1.M/s B.S.E.S. Yamuna Power Ltd.
Minto Road, Gandhi Market,
Behind Zakir College, New Delhi-2
..... MANAGEMENT NO.1
2.M/s Property Guards Security
Services Pvt. Ltd.
RZ-379, 1st Floor, Gali No. 21,
Tughlakabad Ext..
New Delhi-110019
Corporate Office: 414, Maker-111,
LIR No. 1996/2019 Page 1/23
New Marine Line,
Mumbai-400020
..... MANAGEMENT NO.2
Date of institution of the case : 21.08.2019
Date of passing the Award : 29.04.2026
A W A R D:
1. A reference No.F.24(168)/18/Ref./CD/Lab/164 dated 02.08.2019 was received from appropriate government for adjudication and disposal of industrial dispute between the aforesaid claimant and the management by formulating the following terms of reference:
"Whether Sh. Krishan Pal, s/o Sh. Ugarsen, age around 57 years, has been superannuated on completion of retirement age or his services has been terminated illegally, if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"
2. A notice of the aforesaid reference was sent to the workman for filing of his statement of claim. Statement of claim was filed on behalf of the workman wherein it is stated that the workman was hired by management no.2 as a security guard in 2009. It is further stated that the workman was hired after taking complete resume from him.
3. It is further stated in the claim that when the workman demanded his appointment letter, annual leave, casual leave, minimum wage, ESI, and Pro-Fund slips from the management no.2, he was illegally terminated LIR No. 1996/2019 Page 2/23 on October 24, 2011, without any prior notice and without payment of his earned wages.
4. It is further stated in the claim that the case of dismissal is pending before Mr. Binay Kumar, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rothasin Officer, at the Karkardooma Labor Court, Shahdara, Delhi. Mr. Prabhakar, Advocate and Mr. Sunil Kumar, Manager appeared in the court and assured that the workman will be reinstated to his previous job and that he will be reimbursed for unemployment relief. They also assured that they will pay ₹20,000 per day.
5. It is further stated in the claim that on 9-6-2017, he met Mr. Sunil Kumar, the manager at the company, and he was hired and was assigned to the position of security guard at M/s BSES Yamuna Power Ltd., Minto Road, Gandhi Market, Delhi. The workman continued working and started paying him a salary of ₹13,500 per month. It is further submitted that the workman during his initial appointment submitted his Aadhar Card and when the manager asked him to resubmit it, the workman stated that his Aadhar Card has been misplaced and he will give the same after preparing a new one. He further stated that his date of birth is incorrect in the Aadhar Card and he will get the date of birth corrected in his Aadhar Card, however, he had the photocopy of the same, to which Manager told the workman to give it later as it was just a formality. The workman trusting the LIR No. 1996/2019 Page 3/23 Manager gave the photocopy of the Aadhar card.
6. It is further stated in the claim that when the workman corrected his date of birth on his Aadhaar card and went to give it to the manager, the manager told that "It's okay, it was just a formality, and that's it." Nevertheless, the workman sent a copy of the Aadhaar card by post. He further tried to give the same to his supervisor, however, he also didn't take it. The workman told the managers that they deducted ESI and PF money from his salary, however, they did not issue any ESI card or a Provident Fund receipt since 2009. A letter was also sent to the management demanding ESI card, Provident Fund slip, uniform and shoes.
7. It is further stated in the claim that workman filed a complaint with the Assistant Labor Commissioner, Labor Office, Pusa, New Delhi, alleging underpayment and non-payment of bonuses to another security guard employed at M/s BSES Yamuna Power, which annoyed the management and out of revenge, they manager sent a letter dated October 31, 2018 terminating the workman from service (retiring him), even though the workman was due to retire in 2022.
8. Being aggrieved, the workman sent a demand letter to the management by way of speed post and demanded that he be taken back to his old job with all legal facilities within a week of receiving the LIR No. 1996/2019 Page 4/23 letter but the management did not give any reply.
9. Thereafter, through the union, workman filed the claim before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Pusa, New Delhi. The employers' attitude remained uncooperative during the proceedings. In such circumstances, the Assistant Labor Commissioner had no other option but to refer the dispute to the Labor Court.
10. It is further stated in the claim that the workman remained unemployed since October 31, 2018 and despite his best efforts he did not find any job. It is prayed that the Management be directed to reinstate him to services with full back wages and consequential benefits.
11. Thereafter, notice of the statement of claim has been issued to both the management for filing of written statement. Written statement has been filed on behalf of the management no.1 wherein it is submitted that the workman was not an employee of the management no.1 neither does draw wages from the management no.1 and admittedly, the workman was deputed by the management no.1, who was an independent contractor. It is further submitted that the Contract Labor Act envisages 'Contract Labor' as a workman employed in connection with the work of an establishment where he is hired in or in connection with the work of an establishment by or through a Contractor. The LIR No. 1996/2019 Page 5/23 Contract Labor Act defines both 'Contractor' and 'Principal Employer in relation to the 'Establishment'. An Establishment implies any place where any industry, trade, business, manufacture or occupation is carried on. A 'Contractor' in relation to such establishment is a person who undertakes to produce a given result for the Establishment through contract labor or who supplies a contract labor for any work of the Establishment, whereas a 'Principal Employer' in relation to the Establishment is a person responsible for the supervision and control of the Establishment. It is further stated that the management no.2 in the present case is obviously the Contractor and not the Management No. 1 herein since the Claimant was employed by the independent Contractors i.e., Management No. 2 who in turn had deputed him to work in Management No. 1 Company and have no direct or indirect relationship with the Principal Employer and as such the workman engaged by the independent Contractor ie., Management No. 2 will be exclusively his workman. The Management No. 2 has separate PF and ESIC code for his workmen wherein the Management No. 1 has no role to play nor is concerned with the benefit given by the Management No. 2 to their workmen. Hence, the management No. 1 had no control and legal obligation inter-alia workman herein with regard to his recruitment, payment of salary, providing facility of yearly leave, causal leave, minimum wages, ESI, provident fund, right of suspension/dismissal and other such controls. Ld. AR for the management no.1 had relied upon the concept of employment LIR No. 1996/2019 Page 6/23 relationship as prescribed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Chintaman Rao Vs. State of MP [(1958) II, LLJ 252P-526 (SC)] It is further stated that the Management No. 1 had entered into a contract with the Management No. 2 to provide security services having validity period from 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018 which was further extended upto 30.11.2018 and that as per the information received from the Management No. 2, it was informed that the Workman has attained the retirement age of 60 year (superannuation/retirement age) therefore, he was given relieving letter by the Management No. 2 w.e.f. 31.10.2018. In the entire series of event Management No. 1 has no role to play nor has any privity of contract with the Workman. Therefore, it is prayed that the Management No. 1 cannot be held liable for any act of the Management No. 2 nor is liable to compensate the Workman.
12. Written statement has also been filed on behalf of the management no.2 wherein it is stated that the First Party provides the manpower to the esteemed principal employer on contract basis. The Nature of job being performed by the employer company is not perennial and continuous one. As such the security guards deployed by the employer company is on Fixed Term Contract Basis (FTC) as permitted under the amended provisions of Industrial Employment Act, 1948. It is further stated that since the employer company does not have any job in hand except acting as a contractor for providing service to the principal employer, the guards employed through the contractor cannot claim any LIR No. 1996/2019 Page 7/23 permanency with the contractor or with principal employer. This issue is well settled in catena of judgments. It is thus submitted that the workman has no locus to raise an industrial dispute against the immediate employer or principal employer.
13. It is further stated that the workman was superannuated by attaining the age of 60 years. He had produced an election card wherein his age as on 01/01/2015 was 57 years and had attained the age of 60 years in the year 2018. It is thus submitted that under the provision of Industrial Employment Act/ Model Standing Order, the age of superannuation is 60 years. On this ground itself the claim filed on behalf of the workman stands infructuous and liable to be dismissed.
14. It is further stated in the written statement that the cause of action alleged by the workman is that his services were terminated and he was asked to work with various principal employers. Being a security provider, the employer company depends upon the principal employer for providing manpower services on contractual basis. Those principal employers continue such contracts for a limited period. Therefore the services of the security guards are co-terminus to the contract signed between the Principal employer and security provider. The workman has no right to raise a dispute alleging therein that his services were terminated and he is entitled to reinstatement as alleged. In this case the claim of workman for reinstatement against the principal employer is LIR No. 1996/2019 Page 8/23 not valid as there is no employer- workman relationship between the parties and this issue has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Cipla Ltd vs Maharashtra General Kamgar Union, 2001 SCC."
15. It is further stated that the workman has no right to go for amending his date of birth in the government document i.e., Election Card. It is submitted that Under Section 76 of the Evidence Act, that "the Government document need not be proved" and prima facie it establishes that the disputant is superannuated man and he does not have locus to claim reinstatement. It is further stated that the workman had raised various allegations of Unfair Labour Practices and illegality against the employer whereas on the same breath the workman had admitted that the employer company had complied with all statutory welfare schemes including the minimum wages, etc.
16. Remaining contentions of the statement of claim filed on behalf of the workman are denied on behalf of the management and prayed that the claim of the workman is liable to be dismissed.
17. Rejoinder to the aforesaid written statement was filed on behalf of the workman wherein he reiterated and reaffirmed the contentions made in his statement of claim and denied that of written statement.
LIR No. 1996/2019 Page 9/2318. On completion of pleadings following issues are settled:
1. Whether services of workman Shri Krishan Pal S/o Shri Ugarsen age around 57 years have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management on 31.10.2018 and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?... OPW
2. Whether claimant was deputed through management No.2 M/s Property Guard Security Services Pvt. Ltd. and statement of claim is not maintainable against management No.1 in the absence of employer-employee relationship? ... OPM1
3. Whether services of claimant has superannuated upon attaining the age of 60 years and his services were never terminated by management? OPM2
4. Relief.
19. Thereafter, matter was listed for workman evidence. On 10.01.2023 WW-1 Krishan Pal had tendered in evidence his examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex.WW1/A and relied upon the following documents: 1. Carbon copy of complaint dated 16.05.2018 is Ex. WW1/1. 2. Carbon Copy of Complaint dated 26.09.2018 is Ex. WW1/2. 3. Postal receipt dated 26.09.2018 is Ex. WW1/3. 4. Carbon Copy of complaint dated 25.10.2018 is Ex. WW1/4.
5. Carbon copy of complaint dated 26.09.2018 sent to Assistan Labour Commissioner is Ex. WW1/5. 6. Carbon copy of letter dated 26.10.2018 is Ex. WW1/6. 7. Postal receipt of letter dated 26.10.2018 is Ex. WW1/7. 8. Copy of old Election I. Card Mark A, 8. Copy of LIR No. 1996/2019 Page 10/23 Election Card Ex.WW1/9 and 9. Copy of Aadhar Card Ex.WW1/10. He was cross examined at length by Sh. Suryansh Shukla, AR for the management no.1. Thereafter, matter was listed for management evidence.
20. On 15.09.2024 management has produced Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma as MW-1. He tendered in evidence his examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex.MW1/8 and relied upon the following documents:
1. Original Authority letter dated 11.09.2023 is Ex. MWI/A. 2. Contract order dated 04.05.2017, contract change order dated 20.04.2018 & contract change order dated 31.10.2018 are Ex. MW-1/B (colly) (OSR).
3. Power of attorney dated 31.01.2019 is marked as Mark 'A' and his cross examination was deferred on the ground that AR for the workman was not available and the matter was adjourned for 10.10.2023 for cross examination of MW-1. However, on 10.10.2023 when the matter was listed for cross examination of MW-1, AR for the workman was not available and accordingly, opportunity to cross examine MW-1 was closed as sufficient opportunities have already been granted to AR for the workman to cross examined MW-1. Vide separate statement of AR for the management no.1, management no.1 was closed and the matter was listed for evidence on behalf of management no.2. However, on 12.12.2023 when the matter was listed for management no.2 evidence, none had appeared on behalf of the management no.2 to lead evidence.
Accordingly, the opportunity to lead evidence on behalf of management LIR No. 1996/2019 Page 11/23 no.2 was closed and the matter was listed for arguments.
21. Arguments heard from both the parties I.e workman and management no1.Management No2 failed to address any argument. Record perused.
22. Now, in the light of evidence available on record and submissions made on behalf of both the parties, my issue wise findings are as under:
ISSUE NO.1 AND 3:
23. Both these issues are taken up together. The case of the workman is that he was appointed as a 'Security Guard' by the management no.2 in the year 2009, however, the management was not providing him with appointment order, yearly leave, casual leave, minimum wages, ESI and PF. When he demanded these facilities, his services were illegally terminated without any notice on 24.10.2011. Thereafter, he filed a case against the management wherein the representative of management no.2 appeared and stated that they will take back the workman on duty and thus, the workman rejoined his duties w.e.f. 09.06.2017 and was posted as a guard with management no.1. It is further submitted that the workman during his initial appointment submitted his Aadhar Card and when the manager asked him to resubmit it, the workman stated that his Aadhar Card has been misplaced and he will give the same after LIR No. 1996/2019 Page 12/23 preparing a new one. He further stated that his date of birth is incorrect in the Aadhar Card and he will get the date of birth corrected in his Aadhar Card. However, the manager of management no.2 stated that it is a matter of only formality and asked to submit the photo copy. He further asked him to resubmit a fresh Aadhar card after getting his date of birth corrected. The workman submitted the photocopy of his Aadhar card and the workman further submitted that the management was deducting ESI and PF contribution, however, no proof of the same was given. He was also paid less wages than the other guards working under the management no.1. So he filed a complaint before the Labour Office against the management no.2, who got annoyed and sent a letter dated 31.10.2018 stating that the workman had retired from his services, however, the workman was to retire in the year 2022. Thus, the management has terminated his services illegally.
24. The management no.2 had filed their written statement wherein they have not denied the existence of employer-employee relationship. The management no.2 has also raised objection that the workman was engaged at a fixed term contract. It is further sated on behalf of the management that the workman had already attained the age of superannuation in the year 2018 and thus he ceased to be in service on attaining the age of superannuation. Thus, the management no.2 has raised two contentions.
25.Coming to the first contention raised on behalf of management no.2 is LIR No. 1996/2019 Page 13/23 that the workman was employed on a fixed term contract and his job was not perennial in nature and it was quo termus with the contract with the principal employer, however, it is relevant herein to mention that the management no.2 had not led any evidence on this aspect. They have also not cross examined the workman. Nothing has been brought on record to prove that the workman was employed on a fixed term contract. The management no.2 has not produced the contract of employment which should have been shown that he was employed for a fixed term contract. Thus, the contention raised by management no.2 that the employment of the workman is for a fixed term period is not sustainable.
26. The second contention raised on behalf of the management no.2 is that the workman has attained the age of superannuation and it is stated that the workman had attained the age of 60 years and after attaining superannuation he ceases to be in service. Before proceeding further it is useful to have the relevant part of the written statement of the management no.2 before us:
"That the disputant is superannuated by attaining the age of 60 years. The disputant had produced an election card wherein his age as on 01/01/2015 was 57 years. The disputant had attained the age of 60 years in the year 2018. It is thus submitted that under the provision of Industrial Employment Act/ Model Standing Order, the age of superannuation is 60 years. On this ground itself the claim filed on behalf of the workman stands infructuous and liable to be dismissed. "LIR No. 1996/2019 Page 14/23
27. Thus, the management no.2 is claiming that the workman has attained the age of superannuation. In judgement titled as Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. v. Joint Chief Labour Commissioner & Appellate Authority, 1989 SCC OnLine Del 339 Hon'ble Delhi High Court had to deal with model standing orders issued by the Central Government under ID Act ,wherein it has been observed that as per model standing orders the age of superannuation is 58 years, however, the parties are at liberty to change the age of superannuation. The relevant part of the judgement is reproduced as below:
"13. The Schedule as attached to the original Standing Orders Act provided the subjects on which the Standing Orders have to be made and item No. 11 contemplated any other matter which may be prescribed. This Schedule came to be amended by the Central Government by Note No. GSR 30 (E) dated January 17, 1983, and items 10-A and was incorporated. Schedule 1 attached to Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Central Rules, 1946, introduced vide notification dated December 18, 1946, provided for the Model Standing Orders in respect of industrial establishments not being industrial establishments in coal mines.
These Model Standing Orders have been added, altered and modified at different times by Central Government. Schedule 1B was introduced vide notification No. GSR 30 (E) dated January 17, 1989 and in the Model Standing Orders the Central Government provided for the age of retirement or superannuation of a workman initially 60 years but by another notification No. GSR 1040 dated September 12, 1984, the age of retirement was reduced to 58 years. It was mentioned that where there is no such agreed age, retirement or superannuation shall be on completion of 58 years of age by the workmen.
Presumably the Central Government with the object to create more employment LIR No. 1996/2019 Page 15/23 opportunities for the people had thought it fit to reduce the age of retirement from 60 years to 58 years. It is also to be noticed that the Model Standing Orders are not specific on many matters and have given a broad framework on certain matters which were required to be filled in by the employers by drafting the Standing Orders and getting the certified under the provisions of the Standing Orders Act. In this connection the Model Standing Older Nos. 4, 7, 9 and 14 in Schedule I, and items 4 & 5 of Schedule 1B may be noticed."
28. Taking into account the judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court and contention of the management no.2 as raised in para 3 of their written statement, management no. 2 is admitting that the age of superannuation in the establishment of management no.2 is 60 years. The workman has claimed that his date of birth is 11.07.1962 and he will attain the age of 60 years (superannuation age in the year 2022). The workman has placed on record the Aadhar card Ex.WW1/9 and pan card Ex.WW1/10. The said card clearly mentions his date of birth to be 11.07.1962. The documents filed on record on behalf of the workman clearly establishes that he has not attained the age of 60 years in the year 2018. In that case, the onus was upon the management to prove on record by producing documents to show that the workman had attained the age of superannuation in the year 2018. Management no.2 had not led any evidence on this aspect. They had also not cross examined the workman. As per the documents filed on record, the workman will attain superannuation on 31.07.2022. Thus, the termination of his services by management no.2 in the year 2018 claiming that he has LIR No. 1996/2019 Page 16/23 attained the age of superannuation is clearly illegal. The workman has clearly stated on oath that his services have been terminated by the management. On the other hand, the management has not filed on record any document to show that they had complied with the provisions of Section 25F of the ID Act before terminating the services of the workman. Accordingly, both these issues are decided in favour of the workman.
ISSUE NO: 2:
29. The management no.2 has raised an objection that there is no employer-employee relationship between them and the claim against them is not maintainable. The workman had examined himself as WW-1. He was cross examined by AR for the workman. The relevant part of the cross examination is reproduced as under:
"1 was engaged on service by Management no.2 i.e. Property Guard. I was given an appointment letter by the management no.2. I had made oral request for PF, ESIC and appointment letter from DESU. It is correct that I never made any written request for aforesaid facilities. On 24.10.2011, I was terminated by management no.2 i.e. Property Guard. It is correct that management no.1 never terminated my service. In Karkardooma Court, I had arrived for settlements with one Sunil Kumar, who was official of management no.2 i.e. Property Guard. It is correct that neither I was appointed by management no.1 nor my salary used to be disbursed by management no.1 nor management no.1 terminated my service. It is correct that I was employee of management no.2."LIR No. 1996/2019 Page 17/23
30. Perusal of the cross examination of the workman reveals that he is admitting that he is engaged by management no.2, appointment letter was given by management no.2, his services were terminated by management no.2. He further admitted that neither he was appointed by management no.1 nor his salary was disbursed by management no.1. Accordingly, it clearly proves that there is no employer-employee relationship between the workman and management no.1. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the management no.1.
RELIEF:
31. The workman in this case has prayed for reinstatement and back wages with all consequential benefits. As regards the back wages, the law is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of UP State Brassware Corporation Ltd. vs. Uday Narain Pandey, JT 2005 (10) SC 344, wherein it has been held :
"The Industrial Courts while adjudicating on disputes between the management and the workman, therefore, must taken such decisions which would be in consonance with the purpose the law seeks to achieve. When justice is the buzzword in the matter of adjudication under the Industrial disputes act, it would be wholly improper on the part of the superior Courts to make them apply the cold letter of the statutes to act LIR No. 1996/2019 Page 18/23 mechanically. Rendition of justice would bring within its purview giving a person what is due to him and not what can be given to him in law. A person is not entitled to get something only because it would be lawful to do so. If that principle is applied, the functions of an Industrial Court shall lose much of their significance. The Court, therefore, emphasised that while granting relief, application of the mind on the part of the Industrial Court is imperative. payment of full back wages, therefore, cannot be the natural consequence."
32. The above noted observations have been reiterated in the case of Sita Ram Vs Motilal Nehru Farmers' Training Institute, JT 2008 (3) SC 644 ; Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, JT 2009 (9) SCC 396 and Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. Oberoi Flight Services, 2009 XI AD (SC) 401.
33. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Management of Asiatic Airconditioning and Refrigeration Pvt. Ltd. vs. POLCX and Ors. reported in 2005ILLJ 79 has laid down a list of illustrative factors for determination of compensation in lieu of back wages.
34. While dealing with the relief of reinstatement. In case of Surender Kumar Verma Vs. Central Government Industrial TribunalcumLabour Court, New Delhi (supra), (1980) 4 SCC 443, it has been further observed as under :
LIR No. 1996/2019 Page 19/23"Plain common sense dictates that the removal of an order terminating the services of workmen must ordinarily lead to the reinstatement of the services of the workmen. It is as if the order has never been, and so it must ordinarily lead to back wages too. But there may be exceptional circumstances which make it impossible or wholly inequitable vis-a-vis the employer and workmen to direct reinstatement with full back wages. For instance, the industry might have closed down or might be in severe financial doldrums; the workmen concerned might have secured better or other employment elsewhere and so on. In such situations, there is a vestige of discretion left in the court to make appropriate consequential orders. The court may deny the relief of award of full back wages where that would place an impossible burden on the employer. In such and other exceptional cases the court may mould the rel The workman in this case has prayed for reinstatement and back wages with all consequential benefits. It was argued during final arguments that the workman was drawing salary of Rs.13,900/- per month at the time of termination of employment. As regards the back wages, the law is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of UP State Brassware Corporation Ltd. vs. Uday Narain Pandey, JT 2005 (10) SC 344, wherein it has been held :
"The Industrial Courts while adjudicating on disputes between the management and the workman, therefore, must taken such decisions which would be in consonance with the purpose the law seeks to achieve. When justice is the buzzword in the matter of adjudication under the Industrial disputes act, it would be wholly improper on the part of the superior Courts to LIR No. 1996/2019 Page 20/23 make them apply the cold letter of the statutes to act mechanically. Rendition of justice would bring within its purview giving a person what is due to him and not what can be given to him in law. A person is not entitled to get something only because it would be lawful to do so. If that principle is applied, the functions of an Industrial Court shall lose much of their significance. The Court, therefore, emphasised that while granting relief, application of the mind on the part of the Industrial Court is imperative. payment of full back wages, therefore, cannot be the natural consequence."
35. The above noted observations have been reiterated in the case of Sita Ram Vs Motilal Nehru Farmers' Training Institute, JT 2008 (3) SC 644 ; Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, JT 2009 (9) SCC 396 and Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. Oberoi Flight Services, 2009 XI AD (SC) 401.
36. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Management of Asiatic Airconditioning and Refrigeration Pvt. Ltd. vs. POLCX and Ors. reported in 2005ILLJ 79 has laid down a list of illustrative factors for determination of compensation in lieu of back wages.
37. While dealing with reinstatement in case of Surender Kumar Verma Vs. Central Government Industrial TribunalcumLabour LIR No. 1996/2019 Page 21/23 Court, New Delhi (supra), (1980) 4 SCC 443, it has been further observed as under :
"Plain common sense dictates that the removal of an order terminating the services of workmen must ordinarily lead to the reinstatement of the services of the workmen. It is as if the order has never been, and so it must ordinarily lead to back wages too. But there may be exceptional circumstances which make it impossible or wholly inequitable vis-a-vis the employer and workmen to direct reinstatement with full back wages. For instance, the industry might have closed down or might be in severe financial doldrums; the workmen concerned might have secured better or other employment elsewhere and so on. In such situations, there is a vestige of discretion left in the court to make appropriate consequential orders. The court may deny the relief of award of full back wages where that would place an impossible burden on the employer. In such and other exceptional cases the court may mould the relief, but, ordinarily the relief to be awarded must be reinstatement with full back wages. That relief must be awarded where no special impediment in the way of awarding the relief is clearly shown. True, occasional hardship may be caused to an employer but we must remember that, more often than not, comparatively far greater hardship is certain to be caused to the workmen if the relief is denied than to the employer if the relief is granted."
38. In the present case, the workman had already attained the age of superannuation, so he cannot be granted relief of reinstatement. The justice would be served by granting him lump-sum back wages instead LIR No. 1996/2019 Page 22/23 of reinstatement. Taking into account, the period of the services of the claimant, the nature of duties performed by him and other surrounding circumstances, an award of Rs.6,00,000/- is granted in favour of the workman and against the management no. 2 which includes the cost of litigation.
39. The management no. 2 is directed to pay the said amount of award within a period of one month from the date of publication of award failing which the management shall be liable to pay an interest of 9% per annum from the date, it becomes due and till realization order accordingly.
40. In view of my above discussion, the claim of the claimant is disposed of. The present reference stands answered accordingly.
41. A copy of the award be sent to the appropriate Government for its publications as per rules.
42. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally
signed by
ARUN ARUN GOEL
Date:
Announced in open court GOEL 2026.04.29
12:04:58
+0530
on Dated: 29.04.2026 (Arun Goel)
Presiding Officer, Labour Court - X
Rouse Avenue Courts
New Delhi:29.04.2026
LIR No. 1996/2019 Page 23/23