Delhi District Court
Lajwanti vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 23 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SUJIT SAURABH, PRESIDING
OFFICER, LABOUR COURT-IX, ROUSE AVENUE
DISTRICT COURT, NEW DELHI
LIR No. 3791/2016
CNR No. DLCT13-002111-2014
ALGU CHAUDHARY Vs. M/s RICHA GLOBAL EXPORTS
PVT. LTD. & ANR.
Sh. Algu Chaudhary
S/o Sh. Dasai Chaudhary
R/o G-282, Mangolpuri,
New Delhi - 110083.
Through, All India General Mazdoor Trade Union (Regd.)
170, Bal Mukund Khand, Giri Nagar, Kalkaji,
New Delhi-110019
....... Workman
VERSUS
1.M/s. Richa Global Exports Pvt. Ltd., A-41, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi - 110064
2. M/s. SDS Security Pvt. Ltd., AB-14 B, Safdarjung Enclave Market, Near Kamal Cinema, New Delhi - 110029 ...... Managements Date of Institution : 27.11.2014 Date of Award : 23.04.2026 AWARD
1. This is a reference under Section 10(1)(c) read with Section 12 (5) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (in short, 'I.D. Act'). The reference has been sent to the court for adjudication by the Dy.
LIR No. 3791/2016 Algu Chaudhary Vs. M/s Richa Global Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Page 1 of 19Labour Commissioner, South-West District, Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi, vide reference order dated 25.09.2014, bearing endorsement No.F.24(441)14/SWD/Lab./9125-9128. The reference arises from the industrial dispute between the workman namely Sh. Algu Chaudhary (now deceased) S/o Sh. Dasai Chaudhary (hereinafter referred to as the 'Workman') on one side and the managements of M/s Richa Global Exports Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Management No.1') and M/s SDS Security Pvt. Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the 'Management No.2') on the other side. The terms of reference read as follow:
"Whether services of said Sh. Algu Chaudhary S/o Sh. Dasai Chaudhary have been terminated illegally and/ or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what relief is he entitled?"
2. On receipt of the reference, notice of the reference was issued to the workman. The workman put up appearance before the court and filed statement of claim.
Both the managements entered appearance through their respective Authorised Representatives (in short, 'AR') and filed written statement of defence.
Separate rejoinder to the written statements were filed on behalf of the workman.
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
3. Brief facts, as culled out from the statement of claim, are as follows:
The workman has stated that he was working continuously in the establishment of the management since 24.07.1997 on the post of Security Guard and his last drawn monthly wage was Rs. 8,554/-LIR No. 3791/2016 Algu Chaudhary Vs. M/s Richa Global Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Page 2 of 19
(Rupees eight thousand five hundred and fifty-four only). During course of his employment, he never gave any opportunity to the managements to complain against him. However, the managements had deprived him of various benefits such as appointment letter, leave book, salary slip, attendance card, weekly and annual leave, bonus, overtime wage, housing allowance, conveyance allowance etc. He has alleged that his services were terminated by the managements on 28.06.2014 when he demanded the aforesaid legal benefits. He has stated that his services were terminated with the intention of revenge.
His salary for period 01.06.2014 to 27.06.2014 was held by the managements. He has stated that his duty was at the address of the principal employer M/s Richa Global Exports Pvt. Ltd. i.e. B-65, Phase-I, Mayapuri, Industrial Area, New Delhi-110064 and from the same address his services were terminated.
It is stated by the workman that he had sent a demand letter/notice dated 28.06.2014 to the managements through speed post and demanded dues of salary and other legal dues and asked for reinstatement. Despite service of the notice, the managements neither replied to the notice nor reinstated him nor paid his dues.
The workman through his union lodged a complaint before Assistant Labour Commissioner. On his complaint, Labour Inspector went to the establishment of the managements to ask them to reinstate the workman. However, the managements refused to reinstate him and to pay his dues.
The workman raised an Industrial Dispute against the managements, regarding his illegal termination, before Regional Labour Office, Government of (NCT) of Delhi. The Conciliation Officer summoned the managements by way of notice for LIR No. 3791/2016 Algu Chaudhary Vs. M/s Richa Global Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Page 3 of 19 conciliation proceeding. However, the managements did not appear before the Conciliation Officer. Accordingly, the Conciliation Officer recorded his failure report and forwarded the same to the Labour Commissioner, who in turn, referred the dispute to the Labour Court.
The workman has stated that he is unemployed since the time of termination of his service and he could not secure any employment despite his best efforts. He has prayed for reinstatement with back wages.
WRITTEN STATEMENT
4. Both the managements have contested the reference by filling separate written statement of defence.
4.1 It is defence of the Management No.1 that there was no employer-employee or master-servant relationship between the management No.1 and the workman. It has stated that the workman was in the employment of M/s SDS Security Pvt. Ltd. i.e. Management No.2. The workman was working under direct supervision and control of the M/s SDS Security Pvt. Ltd. M/s SDS Security Pvt. Ltd. used to provide services to the Management No.1 by engaging its own employees/manpower on its roll and used to submit its bill for the services provided to the Management No.1.
4.2 It is plea of the Management No.2 that it had never terminated services of the workman. The workman himself was absent without any intimation or authorisation w.e.f 29.06.2014 and thus, he had abandoned the employment of the management. The Management had made several correspondences with the workman to call him to LIR No. 3791/2016 Algu Chaudhary Vs. M/s Richa Global Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Page 4 of 19 report for duty. The management has stated that the name of the workman still exists on its roll and the workman can join his duties immediately.
ISSUES
5. Vide order dated 26.02.2016, Ld. Predecessor Judge had settled following issues for determination:
1. Whether any relationship of employer and employee existed between the claimant and management no. 1? OPW
2. Whether the management no. 2 illegally and/or unjustifiably terminated services of the claimant? OPW
3. Whether the claimant unauthorizedly absented from his duties w.e.f. 29.06.2014, as alleged by the management? OPM2
4. Relief WORKMAN'S EVIDENCE (WE)
6. The workman led evidence in support of his claim.
Sole witness examined on behalf of the workman is workman himself. He stepped in the witness box as WW1 and tendered his affidavit in evidence Ex.WW1/A. He relied upon following documents:
i. Complaint dated 28.06.2024 filed before Assistant Labour Commissioner Ex. WW1/1, ii. Statement of Claim filed before the Conciliation Officer, Hari Nagar, New Delhi Ex. WW1/2, iii. Demand Letter dated 28.06.2014 Ex. WW1/3, iv. Copy of ESI contribution record for period 1997 to 1998 LIR No. 3791/2016 Algu Chaudhary Vs. M/s Richa Global Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Page 5 of 19 Ex. WW1/4, v. Copy of ESI contribution record for period 1998 to 1999 Ex. WW1/5, vi. Postal Receipts Ex. WW1/6 and Ex. WW1/7 and vii. Copy of ESIC card Ex. WW1/8.
Vide order dated 18.04.2017, WE was closed and the matter was listed for management's evidence.
MANAGEMENT'S EVIDENCE (ME)
7. Both the managements examined one witness each in their favour.
7.1 Management No.1 examined Sh. B.D. Bhatt. At the relevant time, he was working with Management No.1 as Personnel Executive. He was examined as MW-1. He tendered his affidavit in evidence Ex.MW1/A. He relied upon following documents: -
i. Copy of the attendance register Ex. MW1/1, ii. Copy of the Wage Register Ex. MW1/2, iii. Copy of ESI Return Ex. MW1/3 and iv. Copy of the employee's provident fund (EPF) return Ex. MW1/4.
7.2 Management No.2 examined Sh. Amiya Ranjan Panigrahi. At the relevant time, he was manager (HR) in M/s. SDS Security Pvt.
Ltd. He was also examined as MW-1. He had tendered his affidavit in evidence Ex. MW1/A. He relied upon movement order dated 22.03.2017 Ex. MW1/1.
DEATH OF THE WORKMAN LIR No. 3791/2016 Algu Chaudhary Vs. M/s Richa Global Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Page 6 of 19
8. Before examination of the witnesses of the management No.2, the workman had expired. Copy of death certificate of the deceased workman was placed on record. As per death certificate, the workman had expired on 27.04.2019.
8.1 An application under Order XXII Rule 3 r/w Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 (in short, 'CPC') was filed on behalf of the legal representatives/heirs (in short, 'LRs') of the deceased workman to implead them as party. Vide order dated 11.12.2019, the application was allowed and following LRs were brought on record:
1. Smt. Kanta Devi (wife of the deceased workman),
2. Mr. Rajneesh Kumar Chaudhary (son of the deceased workman),
3. Mr. Arvind Kumar (Son of the deceased workman) and
4. Ms. Anjali (Daughter of the deceased workman) FINAL ARGUMENTS
9. Final arguments were advanced on behalf of the parties. Written arguments were also filed on behalf of the management no.2.
ISSUE WISE FINDING
10. The management No.1 has denied employer-employee relationship between itself and the workman. On the other hand, the Management No.2 has admitted employer-employee relation between itself and the workman.
It is not in controversy weather the managements are industries within the definition of 'industry' under Section 2(j) of the I.D. Act. It is not in dispute that the workman was in 'continuous LIR No. 3791/2016 Algu Chaudhary Vs. M/s Richa Global Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Page 7 of 19 service' of the management No.2.
In the light of above noted facts, the issues shall be discussed and determined.
11. Issue No.1: Whether any relationship of employer and employee existed between the claimant and management no. 1? OPW 11.1 It is a well settled principle of law that the person who sets up a plea of existence of relationship of employer and employee, the burden of proof would be upon him.
In Workmen of Nilgiri Co-op. Mkt. Society Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, AIR 2004 SC 1639, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"47. It is a well-settled principle of law that the person who is set up a plea of existence of relationship of employer and employee, the burden would be upon him."
Relying upon Workmen of Nilgiri (supra), in Rakesh Sharma Versus Indian Oil Corporation and another, LPA No. 18 of 2021(Date of decision:22.03.2024), Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh has held as follows:
7. It is no longer res-integra that the burden of proving the employer-employee relationship primarily rests upon the person who asserts its existence. In a situation where a person asserts to be an employee of the management which the management denies, the duty primarily rests upon the person so asserting to give positive evidence in his favour and discharge his initial burden. Once such a person has given positive evidence in his favour, only then, the burden would shift on the management to give evidence to counter such claims.
In Sunil Kumar & Ors. vs The State & Ors. W.P.(C) 2931/2024, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has noted as follows:
'23. At this Juncture, it is apposite for this Court to understand the jurisprudence behind the principles establishing an LIR No. 3791/2016 Algu Chaudhary Vs. M/s Richa Global Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Page 8 of 19 employer-employee relationship and upon whom the onus to prove the same lies. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard in the judgment titled Kanpur Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. v. Shamim Mirza, (2009) 1 SCC 20, observed the following:
"20. It is trite that the burden to prove that a claimant was in the employment of a particular management, primarily lies on the person who claims to be so but the degree of proof, so required, varies from case to case. It is neither feasible nor advisable to lay down an abstract rule to determine the employer-employee relationship. It is essentially a question of fact to be determined by having regard to the cumulative effect of the entire material placed before the adjudicatory forum by the claimant and the management."
xxx xxx xxx
28. Tersely stated, the onus to establish the relationship of employee- employer between the management and the workman is on the claimant i.e., the person who sets up a plea of existence of such relationship between the parties.
29. This Court is further of the view that as per the settled position of law, the claimant must prove the existence of the employee-employer by way of, either direct evidence (producing a letter of appointment or a written agreement between the workman and the management) and/or via circumstantial evidence of incidental/ancillary nature (attendance register, salary register, leave records, deposit of PF contribution, ESI, entry card, etc), failing which the claim may not be entertained by the Court."
11.2 Adverting to facts of the case, the workman has not placed on record any document to indicate that he was under direct employment of the Management No.1. From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, it is evident that there was no privity of contract between the Management No.1 and the workman and that the workman had been employed by the Management No.2.
11.2(I) In the statement of claim, the workman has referred the Management No.1 as principal employer. He has stated that his duty was at the address of the principal employer M/s Richa Global LIR No. 3791/2016 Algu Chaudhary Vs. M/s Richa Global Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Page 9 of 19 Exports Pvt. Ltd. i.e. B-65, Phase-I, Mayapuri, Industrial Area, New Delhi-110064 and from the same address his services were terminated. Similar averments are found in para No.4 of the evidence by way of affidavit of the workman Ex.WW1/A. 11.2(II) In his cross-examination on behalf of the Management No.1, the workman has stated as follows:
"It is correct that I was neither appointed by management no.1 nor I have worked on the rolls of the management no.1 at any point of time. It is correct that I was not paid any salary or provided any statutory benefits by the management no.1. I have nothing to do with management no.1 and I do not claim any benefit from management no. 1."
11.2(III) Further, the documents relied upon by the workman indicate that the Management No. 2. was his employer. He has relied on ESI contribution records Ex. WW1/4 and Ex. WW1/5. Name of the employee and the employer, as reflected from Ex. WW1/4 and Ex. WW1/5, are 'Algu Chaudhary' and 'SDS Security (P) Ltd.' respectively.
11.3 In this case, burden of proving employer-employee relationship was on the workman. However, from the facts discussed above, it is clear that the workman has failed to discharge the burden. The workman has failed to prove employer-employee relationship between the Management No.1 and himself. Accordingly, the issue is decided against the workman.
12. Determination of issue No.3 has a bearing on issue No.2. Hence, issue No.3 is decided first.
LIR No. 3791/2016 Algu Chaudhary Vs. M/s Richa Global Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Page 10 of 1913. Issue No.3: Whether the claimant unauthorizedly absented from his duties w.e.f. 29.06.2014, as alleged by the management? OPM2 13.1 Where an employer claims that the workman himself left his employment voluntarily, the employer must issue a notice to the workmen directing him to resume duties and in absence of such notice, plea of voluntary abandonment of employment cannot be accepted.
In M/s. Premsons Trading (P) Ltd. Versus Shri. Dinesh Chandeshwar Rai C/O. Maharashtra Employees Union Writ Petition No. 4616 of 2019, Hon'ble High court of Bombay has held as under:
"It is well settled law that to prove voluntary abandonment, the employer must issue a notice to the workmen directing him to resume duties and in absence of such notice, voluntary abandonment of employment cannot be accepted"
13.2 The expressions 'absence from duty' and 'abandonment of service' are not synonymous. It is settled position of law that a temporary absence from the service alone is not sufficient to constitute abandonment. Intention of the workman to completely detach from the service is essential for abandonment. There must be total and complete giving up of duties so as to indicate an intention not to resume the same. However, such an intention cannot be attributed to an employee without adequate evidence in that behalf.
13.3 In G. T. Lad & Ors Vs. Chemicals & Fibres of India Ltd. 1979 SCC (1) 590, Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the issue of abandonment. It has been held as follows:
LIR No. 3791/2016 Algu Chaudhary Vs. M/s Richa Global Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Page 11 of 19"In the Act, we do not find any definition of the expression 'abandonment of service'. In the absence of any clue as to the meaning of the said expression, we have to depend on meaning assigned to it in the dictionary of English language. In the unabridged edition of the Random House Dictionary, the word 'abandon' has been explained as meaning 'to leave completely and finally; for- sake utterly; to relinquish, renounce; to give up all concern in something'. According to the Dictionary of English Law by Earl Jowitt (1959 edition) 'abandonment' means' relinquishment of an interest or claim'. According to Black's Law Dictionary 'abandonment' when used in relation to an office means 'voluntary relinquishment. It must be total and under such circumstances as clearly to indicate an absolute relinquishment. The failure to perform the duties pertaining to the office must be with actual or imputed intention, on the part of the officer to abandon and relinquish the office. The intention may be inferred from the acts and conduct of the party, and is a question off act. Temporary absence is not ordinarily sufficient to constitute an abandonment of office'.
From the connotations reproduced above it clearly follows that to constitute abandonment, there must be total or complete giving up of duties so as to indicate an intention not to resume the same. In Buckingham Co. v. Venkatiah & Ors. it was observed by this Court that under common law an inference that an employee has abandoned or relinquished service is not easily drawn unless from the length of absence and from other surrounding circumstances an inference to that effect can be legitimately drawn and it can be assumed that the employee intended to abandon service. Abandonment or relinquishment of service is always a question of intention, and normally, such an intention cannot be attributed to an employee without adequate evidence in that behalf. Thus, whether there has been a voluntary abandonment of service or not is a question of fact which has to be determined in the light of the surrounding circumstances of each case."
(Emphasis supplied) In Vijay S. Sathaye Versus Indian Airlines Ltd. & Ors. SLP(C) Nos. 24220-24221 of 2007, at para no.12, Hon'ble Supreme Court has quoted with approval the observation made in Buckingham and Carnatic Co. Ltd. v. Venkatiah & Anr., AIR 1964 SC 1272 which is as follows:
LIR No. 3791/2016 Algu Chaudhary Vs. M/s Richa Global Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Page 12 of 19"Abandonment or relinquishment of service is always a question of intention, and normally, such an intention cannot be attributed to an employee without adequate evidence in that behalf."
In M/s Engineers India Ltd versus Presiding Officer Labour Court W.P.(C) No.17858/2004 (Judgment dated 05.03.2018), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has noted as follows:
"Intention, or animus, to abandon, is the necessary sine qua non, for any case of "abandonment" to be said to exist. In the absence of intention, there is no abandonment. Any clause contemplating "deemed abandonment", even if it exists, cannot be so interpreted as to deem abandonment to have taken place, even where intention to abandon is not apparent."
13.4 Adverting to facts of the case, there is nothing on record to suggest that the workman had an intention to abandon the services of the management. The movement order dated 22.03.2017 Ex. MW1/1 was not issued by the Management No.2 before alleged termination of the services of the workman. It was issued after raising the industrial dispute and during pendency of the matter before the court.
13.4(I) The Management No.2 has taken a plea that it had made several correspondences with the workman to call him to report for duty. It is another plea of the management No.2 that name of the workman still exists on its roll. However, the plea of the management is not supported by any evidence. Only document brought on record by the Management No.2 is movement order dated 22.03.2017 Ex. MW1/1, which was issued during pendency of the matter before the court.
13.4(II) Demand Letter Ex. WW1/3 was issued by the workman on 28.06.2014 which is alleged date of termination of service. Complaint filed by the workman before Assistant Labour Commissioner Ex. WW1/1 is also of the same date.
LIR No. 3791/2016 Algu Chaudhary Vs. M/s Richa Global Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Page 13 of 1913.4(III) In the light of above discussed facts, it is difficult to appreciate that the workman had any intention to abandon or relinquish the services of the management.
13.5 The burden of proving 'abandonment' was on the Management No. 2. However, the Management No.2 has failed to discharge the burden. Mere bald statement of facts is not sufficient to discharge the burden. Accordingly, Issue No.3 is decided against the Management No.2.
14. Issue No.2: Whether the management no. 2 illegally and/or unjustifiably terminated services of the claimant? OPW 14.1 It is admitted position of the Management No.2 that the workman was appointed by it. It was maintaining attendance register of the workman and its official were marking attendance of the workman. It is also admitted fact that the workman had lastly worked with the Management No.2 on 26.08.2014.
MW1 Sh. Amiya Ranjan Panigrahi, who is witness of the Management No.2, has stated as follows:
"It is correct that the workman was appointed by the management with effect from July 1997. It is also correct that the last working day of the workman was 28.06.2014.
xxx xxx xxx xxx The attendance register in respect of workman was being maintained by us. Our officers used to mark the attendance of the workman in the said register"
14.2 There is no requirement of law that the termination of services of a workman should be affected by a written communication only. It can be inferred from the facts and circumstance of the case.
LIR No. 3791/2016 Algu Chaudhary Vs. M/s Richa Global Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Page 14 of 1914.3 The management No.2 has failed to prove abandonment of service by the workman. In such case, force is found in the plea of the workman that his service were terminated by the management.
15. Termination of service of a workman by the employer is essentially a retrenchment unless it falls under any of the exceptions mentioned in section 2(oo) of the I.D. Act.
15.1 Section 2(oo) of the I.D. Act, reads as follows:
(oo) "retrenchment" means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not include--
(a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or
(b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or (bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or
(c) termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health 15.2 Hon'ble Supreme Court, in K.V. Anil Mithra & Anr. Versus Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 9067 of 2014 (Judgment dated 27.10.2021), has held as follows:
"22. The term 'retrenchment' leaves no manner of doubt that the termination of the workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action are being termed as retrenchment with certain exceptions and it is not dependent upon the nature of employment and the procedure pursuant to which the workman has entered into service...."LIR No. 3791/2016 Algu Chaudhary Vs. M/s Richa Global Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Page 15 of 19
15.3 It is not plea of the management that the services of the workman were terminated as a punishment after disciplinary action. The case of the workman does not fall under any of the exceptions under section 2(oo). Hence, the termination of services of the workman is essentially a retrenchment.
16. Once a workman is in 'continuous service' within the meaning of section 25 B of the I.D. Act, he cannot be retrenched by the employer without following the conditions precedent for retrenchment as laid down in section 25F of the I.D. Act. Nature of employment or manner of employment is not material for invoking mandatory compliance of Section 25F of the I.D. Act.
In K.V. Anil Mithra (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
"23. The scheme of the Act 1947 contemplates that the workman employed even as a daily wager or in any capacity, if has worked for more than 240 days in the preceding 12 months from the alleged date of termination and if the employer wants to terminate the services of such a workman, his services could be terminated after due compliance of the twin clauses (a) and (b) of Section 25F of the Act 1947 and to its non-observance held the termination to be void ab initio bad and so far as the consequential effect of non-observance of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act 1947, may lead to grant of relief of reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service in favour of retrenched workman, the same would not mean that the relief would be granted automatically but the workman is entitled for appropriate relief for non-observance of the mandatory requirement of Section 25F of the Act, 1947 in the facts and circumstances of each case.
24. The salient fact which has to be considered is whether the employee who has been retrenched is a workman under Section 2(s) and is employed in an industry defined under Section 2(j) and who has been in continuous service for more than one year can be retrenched provided the employer complies with the twin conditions provided under clauses (a) and (b) of Section 25F of the Act 1947 before the retrenchment is given effect to. The LIR No. 3791/2016 Algu Chaudhary Vs. M/s Richa Global Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Page 16 of 19 nature of employment and the manner in which the workman has been employed is not significant for consideration while invoking the mandatory compliance of Section 25F of the Act 1947".
16.1 There is nothing on record to show that any notice under Section 25F of the I.D. Act was issued to the workman before termination of his service or pay for the notice period and retrenchment compensation was paid to him before termination of his services.
Since the workman was in 'continuous service' of the management, termination of his services by the management is held illegal. Accordingly, issue No.2 is decided in favour of the workman and against the management.No.2
17. Issue No.4: Relief 17.1 The workman has stated that he is unemployed since the date of termination of his service. He has prayed for reinstatement with full back wages.
17.2 Since the workman has expired, relief of reinstatement cannot be granted.
17.3 So far as claim of back wages is concerned, a workman cannot claim back wages as a matter of right. It is necessary for the workman to plead and prove with the aid of evidence that after his dismissal from the service, he was not gainfully employed anywhere and had no earning to maintain himself or/and his family.
In Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur Versus Shri Phool Chand (Dead) Through L.Rs. Civil Appeal LIR No. 3791/2016 Algu Chaudhary Vs. M/s Richa Global Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Page 17 of 19 No.1756 of 2010 (Judgment dated 20.09.2018), Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:
11. In our considered opinion, the Courts below completely failed to see that the back wages could not be awarded by the Court as of right to the workman consequent upon setting aside of his dismissal/termination order. In other words, a workman has no right to claim back wages from his employer as of right only because the Court has set aside his dismissal order in his favour and directed his reinstatement in service.
12. It is necessary for the workman in such cases to plead and prove with the aid of evidence that after his dismissal from the service, he was not gainfully employed anywhere and had no earning to maintain himself or/and his family. The employer is also entitled to prove it otherwise against the employee, namely, that the employee was gainfully employed during the relevant period and hence not entitled to claim any back wages. Initial burden is, however, on the employee.
(Emphasis supplied) 17.3(I) In this case, the workman has not brought on record any positive evidence to prove his unemployment.
In his cross-examination on behalf of the Management No.2, the workman has admitted that he had not applied for job in writing. He has stated that he cannot recollect where he had applied for job.
From the above noted facts, it is apparent that the workman has failed to discharge initial burden of proof. Mere self-serving affidavit of the workman is wholly insufficient to discharge the burden. (Reliance placed on Range Forest Officer Versus S.T. Hadimani AIR 2002 Supreme Court 1147) 17.4 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it would not be appropriate to apply ordinary principle of reinstatement with full back wages. In considered view of this court, it would be just and reasonable to award a lumpsum monetary compensation of Rs.
LIR No. 3791/2016 Algu Chaudhary Vs. M/s Richa Global Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Page 18 of 193,50,000/- (Rupees three lakhs and fifty thousand only) to the deceased workman towards full and final satisfaction of the dispute. Accordingly, compensation of 3,50,000/- (Rupees three lakhs and fifty thousand only) is awarded to the deceased workman which shall be paid to his LRs. The compensation amount includes the litigation expenditure. The compensation amount shall be paid by the Management No.2. i.e. M/s SDS Security Pvt. Ltd. The compensation amount shall be paid within four weeks from the date when the award becomes enforceable, failing which the same shall carry an interest @ 8% per annum.
The Issue No.4 is decided accordingly.
18. In terms of the issue wise finding, the reference stands answered.
19. Statement of claim stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, stands disposed of.
20. A copy of this Award be sent to the Competent Authority/ Govt. of NCT of Delhi for information and necessary action, if any, as per rules.
Pronounced in open Court today Digitally signed
i.e. 23.04.2026 SUJIT by SUJIT
SAURABH
SAURABH Date: 2026.04.23
16:00:23 +0530
(Sujit Saurabh)
Presiding Officer, Labour Court-IX
Rouse Avenue Court Complex, Delhi
LIR No. 3791/2016 Algu Chaudhary Vs. M/s Richa Global Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Page 19 of 19