Delhi District Court
Kishan Lal Arora vs Delhi U.P M.P Transport Company on 22 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ARUN GOEL,
DISTRICT JUDGE:PRESIDING OFFICER :
LABOUR COURT - X: RADC:
NEW DELHI
LIR No. 1309/2019 & LI R 1948/19
Kishan Lal Arога,
S/o Late Shri Paras Ram,
R/o D-2/184, Sultanpuri,
Delhi.
............. WORKMAN
VERSUS
Delhi U.P. M.P Transport Company,
(KHURANA GROUP)
Through the Partners:
Shri Jobis Singh Khurana and
Shri Gagandeep Singh Khurana,
Presently at address:-
C-3/11, Ashok Vihar,
Phase-II, Delhi-110052
............. MANAGEMENT
Date of institution of the case : 24.04.2019
Date of passing the Award : 22.04.2026
A W A R D:
1.A reference No. F.24(26)/152/ND/CO-II/18/Lab/993-1995 dated 05.04.2019 was received from appropriate government for adjudication LIR Nos. 1309/2019 & 1948/2019 Page 1/20 and disposal of industrial dispute between the aforesaid claimant and the management by formulating the following terms of reference:
"Whether the services of the workman Sh. Kishan Lal Arora, s/o Sh. Paras Ram or his services have been terminated illegally and unjustifiably by the management and 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. It is further stated in the claim that the workman was working as a clerk since the year 1982 and was confirmed on this post in 1983. It is further stated that the salary of the workman was Rs.8,612/- per month plus Rs.1,600/- p.m. as conveyance charges. It is further stated that the management has not been paying the minimum wages as fixed by the Delhi Government.
3. It is further stated in the claim that the management has not issued any Appointment Letter to the workman and was also not obeying labour laws pertaining to him It is further stated in the claim that the management on 22.02.2018 through its Director Shri Jobis Singh Khurana and Shri Gagandeep Singh Khurana had informed the workman verbally that he has been dismissed from service w.e.f. 23.02.2018 without payment of any outstanding dues for the last several months.
LIR Nos. 1309/2019 & 1948/2019 Page 2/204. It is further stated in the claim that immediately on 24.02.2018, the workman sent the legal notice dated 24.02.2018 to the management for reinstatement and payment of all pending dues, however, the management did not reply to the said legal notice.
5. Being aggrieved, the workman filed the complaint before the Deputy Labour Commissioner/Conciliation Officer, North District, Nimri Colony, Delhi for reinstatement and payment of outstanding dues of Rs.72,974/-. It is further stated in the claim that the management did not take part in conciliation proceedings. Thereafter, the workman have initiated action for getting Bonus dues before the appropriate Forum.
6. It is further stated in the claim that previously the management terminated his services illegally and Shri Babu Lal, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-II, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi had passed an Award reinstating him in the service and declaring his dismissal as illegal act vide its Award dated 04.07.2009 and vide No.348403486 dated 30/10/2009. Shri Lallan Singh, Dy. Labour Commissioner, District North, Delhi published the said Award and issued the Certificate of Enforceability.
7. It is further stated in the claim that unwillingly, the management took the workman on duty in compliance of the said Award but throughout the management has been bullying him in one way or the LIR Nos. 1309/2019 & 1948/2019 Page 3/20 other and has again illegally dismissed his services without cause or reason with malafide intention and without observing the provisions of the ID Act and without giving him any written communication of dismissing his services illegally. It is further stated that there are no standing certified orders of the management nor any retirement age of the workman fixed to his knowledge.
8. It is further stated in the claim that the management is unemployed since the date of his dismissal by the management and prayed that the management be directed prayed that the Management be directed to reinstate him to services with full back wages and consequential benefits.
9. Notice of the reference has been issued to the management for filing of written statement. Written statement has been filed on behalf of the management wherein it is stated that the management is a partnership firm and Mr Gagandeep Singh Khurana is one of the partners of the firm. He has been duly authorized by the firm to represent the present matter. It is further stated that the workman has also filed the another claim in respect of a) Salary not paid so far for November 2017 to February 2018 alongwith conveyance charges b) Bonus for the period 2015-2016, 2016-2017 and 2017-2018.
10. It is further stated in the written statement that the said claim has LIR Nos. 1309/2019 & 1948/2019 Page 4/20 earlier been filed by the workman before Deputy Labour Commissioner/Conciliation officer, North District Nimri Colony, Ashok Vihar, New Delhi. The said claim was dismissed by Labour Commission. It is further stated that the workman was appointed as booking clerk with the management and the workman has left the job without any cogent reason as he was not concentrating on the work. It is further submitted that workman knows very well that he is more than 59 years and management will remove him from job at the age of 60 years. Accordingly, the workman left the job with malafide intention only to file the claim in order to extract handsome amount.
11. It is further stated in the written statement that the workman has filed a false and frivolous claim against the management without any proof. It is submitted that in terms of judgment dated 04.07.2009 passed by Sh Babu Lal, PO Industrial Tribunal-II. KKD Courts, New Delhi, the workman was reinstated and as per directions, 40% back wages was immediately paid and balance was paid. Thus, the workman received the entire amount till 04.07.2009 and nothing is due and payable till 04.07.2009.
12. It is further stated in the claim that the the workman was regularly receiving the monthly pay along with all benefits till April 2019 and nothing is due and payable. Similarly bonus was regularly paid to the workman and nothing is due as stated by workman.
LIR Nos. 1309/2019 & 1948/2019 Page 5/2013. 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.
14. 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.
15. On completion of pleadings of the parties, following issues were settled on 21.12.2019:
(i) Whether the workman has left the job voluntarily and without any cogent reasons?....OPM
(ii) Whether the services of the workman have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably?..OPW
(iii) Relief
16. Thereafter, matter was listed for workman evidence. On 15.12.2022 WW-1 Kishan lal Arora had tendered in evidence his examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex.WW1/A and relied upon the following documents i.e., Photocopy of legal notice dated 24.02.2018 sent to the management is Mark-A. 2. Photocopy of earlier award of Court reinstating the services of deponent and related other papers is Mark-B.
3. Photocopies of PF slip of workman is Mark-C. 4. Photocopy of ESI LIR Nos. 1309/2019 & 1948/2019 Page 6/20 Card of the workman is Mark-D. 5. Photocopy of Cash Voucher payments made to the workman from time to time is Mark-E (Colly). 6. Copy of Aadhar Card of workman is Ex. WW1/1(OSR). He was not cross examined by the management despite repeated opportunity and their right to cross examine WW1 was closed wide order dated 09.05.2024 and the matter was adjourned for remaining workman evidence.
17. Thereafter, on 30.08.2024 WW-2 Sh. Vijay Popli, Labour Inspect had brought the summoned records i.e., the file bearing no. ID/152/ND CO/18 of the conciliation officers. As per the record available in the file the witness had exhibited the following documents: a) The claim filed by the workman before the conciliation officer is exhibited as Ex. WW2/1 b) The copy of the order sheet passed by the conciliation offier are exhibited as Ex. WW2/2. c) Notice issued to the management dated 06.08.2018, is exhibited as Ex. WW2/3. d) Notice issued to the management dated 09.07.2018, is exhibited as Ex. WW2/4. e) Notice issued to the management dated 22.06.2018, is exhibited as Ex. WW2/5. f) Notice issued to the management along with postal receipt dated 22.06.2018, is exhibited as Ex. WW2/6. g) Notice issued to the management along with postal receipt dated 20.04.2018 is exhibited as Ex. WW2/7. h) Notice issued to the management along with postal receipt dated 23.03.2018, is exhibited as Ex. WW2/8. i) Notice issued to the management along with postal receipt dated 19.09.2018, is LIR Nos. 1309/2019 & 1948/2019 Page 7/20 exhibited as Ex. WW2/9. j) Notice issued to the management along with postal receipt dated 05.09.2018, is exhibited as Ex. WW2/10. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned for remaining workman evidence.
18. On 03.03.2025 WW-3 Sh. Naresh Kumar have brought the summoned record which was issued on behalf of the ESIC Department under his signature and it shows the date of appointment of the workman, his ESI No. and was exhibited as Ex.WW3/1. He had also brought the Declaration form issued on behalf of the ESIC Department which shows the Date of appointment, Name and address of the workman and the same was exhibited as Ex.WW3/2 and the said document only shows the employer code and not the name of the management. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned for production of relevant record which shows the name of the management against the employer code for 16.04.2025.
19. On 16.04.2025, WW-3 Sh. Naresh Kumar had brought the summoned records, i.e., Return of contribution, Details of insured person as well as the name of the employer which was exhibited as Ex.WW3/3. He was cross examined by Sh. Dharmendra Prasad, AR for the management. Thereafter, matter was adjourned for further workman evidence.
20. On 14.05.2025 WW-4 Sh. Mahesh brought the member ledger LIR Nos. 1309/2019 & 1948/2019 Page 8/20 pertaining to the workman showing the credit of his PF amount which is exhibited as Ex.WW4/1. He further submitted that the account of the workman was initially credited by ID No. DLCPM0001903/729 belonging to the employer namely Delhi UP Transport Company and that the account was subsequently transferred on 09.02.2012 which is now being credited by ID No. DLCPM0026045/13. He was cross examined by Sh. Dharmendra Prasad, AR for the management and the matter was adjourned for further workman evidence.
21. On 26.09.2025 workman has filed an application for summoning the witnesses. After hearing the application, the same was partly allowed and the witness mentioned at sl.no.2 was summoned for 09.10.2025. However, on 09.10.2025 it was stated by AR for the workman that he do not wish to lead further workman evidence and in view of his separate statement made in this regard, the workman evidence was closed and the matter was adjourned for management evidence.
22. On 18.02.2026 when the matter was fixed for management evidence, it was stated by proxy AR for the management that main counsel was not available being out of station. It was noted that in the present case the workman evidence was closed on 09.10.2025 and thereafter five opportunities have already been granted to the management to lead their evidence but the management has failed to LIR Nos. 1309/2019 & 1948/2019 Page 9/20 lead their evidence. Accordingly, as sufficient opportunities have already been granted to the management to lead their evidence, the right of the management to lead management evidence was closed and the matter was listed for final arguments.
23. Arguments were advanced on behalf of both the parties. Record perused.
24. 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 2:
25. The case of the workman is that he was working as a Clerk with the management since 1982 and his salary was Rs.1600/- per month. The management was not making payment of minimum wages to the workman. The management had also not issued any appointment letter and was also not obeying labour laws pertaining to the workman. The workman has further claimed that on 22.02.2018 the directors of the management informed him verbally and dismissed his services w.e.f. 23.02.2018. They told him not to come to duty w.e.f. 23.02.2018 and also did not make payment of any earned salary dues in the last two months.
LIR Nos. 1309/2019 & 1948/2019 Page 10/2026. The written statement has been filed on behalf of the management wherein it is prayed by the management that the management has not denied the existence of employer-employee relationship, however, it is submitted on behalf of the management that the workman has left the job without any cogent reason as he was not concentrating on the work. It is further submitted that the workman was 59 years old and he was aware that he will be removed from the job at the age of 60 years, so on this account the workman had left the job with the management with malafide intention. Thus, the management has taken the defence of abandonment.
27. As the management has taken the defence of abandonment of services by the workman, the onus is upon the management to prove this fact. The law regarding the abandonment of services by an employee and how it is to be inferred is explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as G.T. Lad v. Chemical and Fibres of India Ltd. , (1979) 1 SCC 590 wherein Court observed as follows.
"5a. Re Question 1:In the Act, we do not find any definition of the expression "abandnment 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; forsake utterly; to relinquish, renounce; to give up all concern in something". According to the Dictionary of English Law by Earl Jowitt (1959 Edn.) "abandonment" means "relinquishment of an interest or claim". According to Black's LIR Nos. 1309/2019 & 1948/2019 Page 11/20 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 of fact. Temporary absence is not ordinarily sufficient to constitute an "abandonment of office".
6. 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 & Carnatic Co. v. Venkatiah [AIR 1964 SC 1272 :
(1964) 4 SCR 265 : (1963) 2 LLJ 638 : (1963-64) 25 FJR 25] 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 a 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.
28. Thus, there was nothing in the surrounding circumstances or the conduct of the appellants indicating or suggesting an intention on their part to abandon service which in view of the ratio of Gopal Chandra Misra case [Union of India v. Gopal Chandra Misra, (1978) 2 SCC 301 : 1978 SCC LIR Nos. 1309/2019 & 1948/2019 Page 12/20 (L&S) 303], can be legitimately said to mean to detach, unfasten, undo or untie the binding knot or link which holds one to the office and the obligations and privileges that go with it. Their absence from duty was purely temporary and could, by no stretch of imagination, be construed as voluntary abandonment by them of the Company's service.
29. In the case of Competition Printing Press vs. Jai Prakash Singh, 2001 SCC Online Bom 262, Hon'ble Bombay High Court and in the case of Sankaranarayanan, P.I., Ernakulam vs. Spices Board Kochi, 1999 II LLJ 592, Hon'ble Kerala High Court held that abandonment of service is a question of intention which has to be gathered from conduct of the employee.
30. Perusal of the law reveals that heavy onus was placed upon the management to prove that the workman has abandoned his duties. Herein, as the management has taken the defence of abandonment, the onus was upon them to prove this fact. It is relevant herein to mention that the workman has examined himself as WW-1, however, he was not cross examined by the management. The management was also granted opportunity to lead evidence but despite repeated opportunities, they fail to lead any evidence. The management has failed to produce any document on record to establish that the workman had abandoned his services. On the other hand the workman has specifically stated on oath the management has terminated his services. The workman has not been cross LIR Nos. 1309/2019 & 1948/2019 Page 13/20 examined, his evidence has gone unrebutted. The workman has immediately send the demand notice, filed proceedings before the conciliation officer and thereafter approached the court. This conduct of the workman does not show any abandonment. The workman has on oath stated that his services have been terminated. This fact has also gone unrebutted. On the other hand the management has not shown that they have complied with 25-F of ID Act before terminating the services of the workman. Thus, both issues are decided in favour of the workman.
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 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 LIR Nos. 1309/2019 & 1948/2019 Page 14/20 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 :
"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 LIR Nos. 1309/2019 & 1948/2019 Page 15/20 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 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 LIR Nos. 1309/2019 & 1948/2019 Page 16/20 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 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 LIR Nos. 1309/2019 & 1948/2019 Page 17/20 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 reached the age of 60 years. The workman has stated that there is not standing order prescribing the superannuation age. In judgment 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 LIR Nos. 1309/2019 & 1948/2019 Page 18/20 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 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."
39. Taking into account the judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court and contention of the management as raised in para 3 of their written statement, management is admitting that the age of superannuation in the establishment of management is 60 years. The workman has not produced any document to the contrary. Thus, it is held that the age of superannuation of workman is 60 years so he cannot be granted relief of LIR Nos. 1309/2019 & 1948/2019 Page 19/20 reinstatement. The justice would be served by granting him lump-sum back wages instead 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.2,00,000/- is granted in favour of the workman and against the management which includes the cost of litigation.
40. The management 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.
41. In view of my above discussion, the claim of the claimant is disposed of. The present reference stands answered accordingly.
42. A copy of the award be sent to the appropriate Government for its publications as per rules.
43. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed by ARUN ARUN GOEL Date:
Announced in open court GOEL 2026.04.22
14:44:56
+0530
on Dated: 22.04.2026 (Arun Goel)
Presiding Officer, Labour Court - X
Rouse Avenue Courts
New Delhi: 22.04.2026
LIR Nos. 1309/2019 & 1948/2019 Page 20/20