Delhi District Court
Dinesh Kumar vs M/S Atma Nand Jain Sabha on 21 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ARUN KUMAR GARG
PRESIDING OFFICER : LABOUR COURT-III
ROUSE AVENUE COURTS COMPLEX : NEW DELHI.
CNR No. DLCT13-002576-2021
Ref. No. F.24(179)/183/ND/Co-I/19/Lab./431-433 dated 20.03.2020
LIR No. 1441/2021
Sh. Dinesh Kumar S/o Sh. Ganga Ram Yadav,
R/o 120, Rajpura Gurmandi, Near Mahavir Pump Wala,
New Delhi-110007
(Contact No. 9999375950)
Through Sh. Anil Kumar, Vice President,
Jagrit Mazdoor Union (Regn. No. 2917),
F-47, Karampura Back Side, Near Labour Office,
New Delhi-110015.
(Contact No. 9953196127). ..... Workman
VERSUS
M/s. Atma Nand Jain Sabha
2/82, Near Shakti Nagar Chowk,
Roop Nagar, New Delhi-110007. ..... Management
Date of Institution of the case : 18.09.2021
Date on which Award is passed : 21.03.2025
AWARD
1.By this Award, I will dispose off the reference dated 20.03.2020, received from the office of Joint Labour Commissioner, District North, Labour Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi U/s 10(1)(C) & 12(5) of Industrial Disputes Act vide order Ref. No. F.24(179)/183/ND/Co-I/19/Lab./431-433 Dated 20.03.2020, whereby, the following issue has been referred to this Court for adjudication:-
"Whether the services of Workman Sh. Dinesh Kumar S/o Sh. Ganga Ram Yadav have been LIR No. 1441/2021 Dinesh Kumar Vs. Atma Nand Jain Sabha Award dated 21.03.2025 Page 1 of 21 terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the Management; if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"
2. The aforesaid reference was received by this Court on 18.09.2021, whereafter, a statement of claim was filed by the Claimant on 27.11.2021 alleging inter alia that he was appointed by Management at the post of Safai Karamchari in the month of January, 1998 and, after many years, was promoted to the post of Assistant Priest with last drawn wages of Rs. 10,800/- per month. Though, according to him, Management had been taking work from him for 12 hours a day, however, he did not give any chance of complaint to Management.
3. It is further his case that Management is engaged in various activities, which are undertaken by an industry, including the booking of rooms on rent, running of various commercial activities, receipt of donations from the devotees and is earning huge amount. He submits that on 01.04.2019, his services were illegally terminated by Management without any reason and without payment of his earned wages for the month of March, 2019 in violation of provisions of Section 25F & G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Since, according to him, despite service of demand notice dated 25.11.2019, Management did not reinstate him in service with full back wages, he was constrained to approach the Labour Department. Management, according to him, has however failed to accede to the demand of Workman and hence, the concerned Joint Labour Commissioner was constrained to make the present reference to this Court. Workman has thus prayed for his reinstatement with full back LIR No. 1441/2021 Dinesh Kumar Vs. Atma Nand Jain Sabha Award dated 21.03.2025 Page 2 of 21 wages, continuity of service and consequential benefits.
4. Written statement to the aforesaid statement of claim was filed on behalf of Management on 12.07.2022, wherein, Management has objected to maintainability of present claim of Workman inter-alia on the ground that the Claimant was working with Management as an Assistant Pujari and hence, he does not fall within the definition of Workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Moreover, according to Management, since Management is merely running and maintaining a Jain Temple, which is engaged in purely religious activities and no commercial/business activities are being carried out by Management, Management is not covered under the definition of 'industry' under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
5. Claim of Workman has also been refuted by Management on merits on the ground that not only there were various complaints against him of non-performance of puja as per rituals and customs of Jain Community, but, he also used to remain absent from his duty without intimation. It is further the case of Management that on a previous occasion i.e. on 05.06.2017, when an explanation was called by Managing Committee of Management temple from the Claimant about his misconduct and frequent absenteeism, he gave a handwritten letter/ undertaking to Management with an assurance to rectify his conduct by stating that if he is found absent from duty without intimation in future, Management may take any action against him.
LIR No. 1441/2021Dinesh Kumar Vs. Atma Nand Jain Sabha Award dated 21.03.2025 Page 3 of 21
6. Despite aforesaid undertaking, according to Management, Claimant did not improve his conduct and hence, on 31.03.2019, due to his continued misconduct, misbehavior and absenteeism, Management was forced to remove him from his services after payment of all dues against proper receipt upon full and final settlement of his account. Management has disputed the claim of Workman that he was employed by Management at the age of 13 years in the month of June, 1998. Management has thus prayed for dismissal of present claim of Workman while denying the receipt of any demand notice from him prior to filing of present claim.
7. A rejoinder to the aforesaid written statement of Management was thereafter filed by Workman on 17.09.2022, wherein, he has once again reiterated the averments made by him in his statement of claim and has denied the contrary averments made by Management in its written statement. He has also denied having given any undertaking to Management on 05.06.2017.
8. Thereafter, on the basis of pleadings of parties, following issues were settled by Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 17.09.2022:-
(i) Whether the Claimant falls under the definition of the Workman as per Section 2(s) of the ID Act? OPW.
(ii) Whether the Management is not industry as per Section 2(j) of the ID Act? OPM.
(iii)Whether the Claimant has already been paid all his dues as stated by the Management in the preliminary objections of the written statement? OPM LIR No. 1441/2021 Dinesh Kumar Vs. Atma Nand Jain Sabha Award dated 21.03.2025 Page 4 of 21
(iv) Whether the services of the Workman were terminated illegally and unauthorizedly on 01.04.2019? OPW.
(v) Whether the Workman is entitled for reinstatement in services with full back wages and continuity of services along with other consequential benefits? OPW.
(vi) In terms of reference.
(vii)Relief.
9. The matter was thereafter adjourned for Workman's evidence, however, an application came to be filed by Management for treatment of issues no. (i) and (ii) as preliminary issues and to decide the same before requiring the parties to lead evidence on remaining issues. Aforesaid application of Management was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 17.02.2024.
10. Workman has examined himself as WW-1 i.e. as the sole witness in support of his case and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.WW1/A along with following documents:
(i) Ex.WW1/1: Carbon copy of complaint dated 14.10.2019.
(ii) Ex.WW1/2 and Ex.WW1/3: Office copy of demand notice dated 25.11.2019 and postal receipt regarding dispatch thereof.
(iii) Ex.WW1/4: Office copy of statement of claim filed by him before Conciliation Officer.
(iv) Ex. WW-1/5: Copy of certificate dated 10.03.2010 issued by Management.
LIR No. 1441/2021Dinesh Kumar Vs. Atma Nand Jain Sabha Award dated 21.03.2025 Page 5 of 21
11. WW-1 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for Management and during his cross-examination was confronted with an undertaking dated 05.06.2017 Ex.WW1/M1 and a voucher dated 31.03.2019 Ex.WW1/M2.
12. No other witness was examined on behalf of Workman despite opportunity and hence, on a separate statement of Workman, Workman's evidence was closed vide order dated 03.10.2024.
13. Management has thereafter examined its President Sh. Ishwar Chand Jain as MW-1 i.e. as the sole witness in support of its case. MW-1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.MW1/A and relied upon the documents already Ex.WW1/M1 and Ex.WW1/M2. MW-1 was duly cross-examined by Ld. AR for Workman. No other witness was examined on behalf of Management despite opportunity and hence, on a separate statement of President of Management, Management's evidence was closed vide order dated 10.01.2025.
14. Final arguments on behalf of both the parties were thereafter heard on 25.02.2025.
15. It is submitted by Ld. AR for Claimant that he has been able to prove all the averments, made by him in his statement of claim, by way of his uncontroverted testimony in the form of affidavit Ex.WW1/A, which is duly corroborated by the admissions elicited by him during cross-examination of MW-1. He has thus prayed for an award in favour of Workman in terms of prayer made by him in his statement of claim.
16. On the other hand, it is submitted by Ld. AR for LIR No. 1441/2021 Dinesh Kumar Vs. Atma Nand Jain Sabha Award dated 21.03.2025 Page 6 of 21 Management that onus to prove the Management to be an 'industry' within the meaning of Section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act and the Claimant to be a 'Workman' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was upon Workman, however, Workman has failed to discharge the aforesaid onus by leading any cogent evidence.
17. It is submitted by him that the only allegations qua the Management, being an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act, are found in Para 3 of the statement of claim, however, Claimant has failed to produce any document to prove the aforesaid averments, nor, has he moved any application for summoning of any record from Management or for that matter from any other authority to prove the aforesaid allegations. He submits that Claimant has even failed to put any question to MW-1 during his cross-examination to prove that Management is in fact an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act.
18. It is further submitted by him that admittedly, Claimant, at the time of termination of his services, was working with Management as an Assistant Pujari and his work was primarily to perform puja and related rituals at the instance of devotees visiting the temple. He submits that the aforesaid work of Claimant does not fall within the category of works mentioned in Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 so as to make him a Workman within the meaning of aforesaid provision. He submits that though the Claimant, during his cross-examination, has tried to take a plea that he was also engaged in the work of cleaning temple as well as washing chaddars besides, performing puja, LIR No. 1441/2021 Dinesh Kumar Vs. Atma Nand Jain Sabha Award dated 21.03.2025 Page 7 of 21 however, according to him, he has failed to lead any evidence in support of his aforesaid self serving statement.
19. He submits that the Court cannot act upon the aforesaid self serving statements of Claimant in view of various contradictions in his testimony. It is pointed out by Ld. AR for Management that during his cross-examination, Claimant was confronted with two documents, one of which was an undertaking Ex.WW1/M1, whereas, another was a voucher Ex.WW1/M2. He submits that though, Claimant has admitted his signatures as well as handwriting in the endorsement on the voucher ExWW1/M2, however, he has denied his handwriting on the document Ex.WW1/M1 while admitting his signatures even on the aforesaid undertaking. He submits that a bare comparison of handwriting on both the aforesaid documents show that both the documents are in fact in the handwriting of Claimant.
20. He further submits that though, Claimant has tried to take a plea, during his cross-examination, that Management had obtained his signatures on the document Ex.WW1/M1 under threat of his removal from services, however, admittedly he had not made any police complaint regarding the aforesaid act of Management.
21. On the other hand, according to him, Management has been able to prove not only that the aforesaid documents were in handwriting of Claimant, but also, that the same were voluntarily signed by Claimant, by way of uncontroverted testimony of MW-1. He submits that testimony of MW-1 regarding misconduct of Claimant in remaining unauthorizedly LIR No. 1441/2021 Dinesh Kumar Vs. Atma Nand Jain Sabha Award dated 21.03.2025 Page 8 of 21 absent from his duties and receipt of various complaints in this regard by Management from the devotees, has remained uncontroverted during his cross-examination which also stand corroborated from the contents of document Ex.WW1/M1.
22. Under the aforesaid circumstances, according to him, even if, it is assumed for the sake of arguments that Claimant was a Workman and Management is an industry, his services were lawfully terminated by Management on account of misconduct, after full and final settlement of his account vide voucher Ex.WW1/M2. He has thus prayed for dismissal of claim of Workman while relying upon following judgments:
(i) Pushkar Lal Vs. Administrative Officer Maharana Pratap Smarak Udaipur; DB Special Appl. Writ No. 171/2020 decided by Hon'ble Rajasthan High court on 15.09.2020.
(ii) Manager, Panchasara Jain Vs. Mahmadkha Gajikha Baloch (1993) ILLJ 523 Guj.
(iii) Aseem Abbas Vs. Rajghat Samadhi Committee & Anr. LPA No. 97/2012 decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 09.02.2012
(iv) Satish Kumar Vs. Holistic Child Development India & Ors. 2024:DHC:9259.
23. I have heard the submissions made on behalf of parties and have carefully perused the material available on record. My issue-wise findings on the issues, settled by Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 17.09.2022, are as follows:-
Issue no. (ii): Whether the Management is not industry as per Section 2(j) of the ID Act? OPM
24. Though, apparently, vide order dated 17.09.2022, onus to LIR No. 1441/2021 Dinesh Kumar Vs. Atma Nand Jain Sabha Award dated 21.03.2025 Page 9 of 21 prove that Management is not an industry as per Section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been placed upon Management, however, in view of the authoritative pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat Vs. Pratam Singh Narsinh Parmar (2001)9 SCC 713, which has been followed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court recently in Satish Kumar Vs. Holistic Child Development India and Anr. 2024:DHC:9259, if a dispute arises as to whether a particular establishment or part thereof, wherein the appointment has been made, is or is not an 'industry' within the meaning of Section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, onus is on the person who claims the same to be an industry to give positive facts for coming to conclusion that it was an industry.
25. In view of aforesaid authoritative pronouncements, in my considered opinion, onus to prove the Management to be an industry in the present case was upon the Claimant. As has been alleged by Ld. Counsel for Management, only allegations, qua the Management being an industry, can be found in para 3 of the statement of claim filed on behalf of Claimant. It has been alleged by Claimant in para 3 of his statement of claim that Management is doing all its activities as industry and is booking the rooms on rent. It is further alleged that Management is also running commercial activities at the premises and the devotees also give donations to Management. It has further been alleged that the work of Management is systematic activity carried by cooperation between the employees and Management and Management is earning heavy amount from the aforesaid activities. The Claimant has thus alleged the Management to be LIR No. 1441/2021 Dinesh Kumar Vs. Atma Nand Jain Sabha Award dated 21.03.2025 Page 10 of 21 prima facie an industry.
26. Claimant, however, has failed to produce any document in support of his aforesaid pleadings in para 3 of the statement of claim despite a specific denial by Management in its written statement that Management is not an industry and is a temple, which, is being run purely for religious purposes of Jain community and no commercial or business activities are being carried out by Management. During his cross-examination, though, the Claimant has alleged that Management used to accept booking of halls and rooms for private functions against payment of fixed charges for which separate receipts used to be issued by Management, however, admittedly he has not annexed any document to prove that Management was engaged in commercial activities.
27. Claimant has failed to move any application seeking a direction to Management to produce the books of its accounts so as to substantiate his plea that Management is engaged in commercial activities of booking of halls and rooms in the temple for private functions against payment of fixed charges, despite specific suggestion on the part of Management to him to the effect that the rooms in the temple were being provided by Management of temple to the devotees free of cost for their stay.
28. On the other hand, sole witness examined on behalf of Management i.e. MW-1, in para 3 of his affidavit Ex. MW1/A, has categorically deposed that Management is a sabha with the basic object of running and maintaining a Jain temple for religious purposes and worship of deity of Jain community and LIR No. 1441/2021 Dinesh Kumar Vs. Atma Nand Jain Sabha Award dated 21.03.2025 Page 11 of 21 the premises of temple is not being used for commercial purposes and no commercial/ business activities were being carried out by the Management. Though, MW-1 was cross- examined by Ld. AR of Claimant at length, however, the aforesaid testimony of MW-1, in para 3 of his affidavit, has remained uncontroverted even during his cross-examination, in as much as, suggestion of Ld. AR of Claimant to MW-1 that Management is involved in commercial activities was categorically denied by MW-1.
29. It is significant to note that MW-1, during his cross- examination, has once again reiterated that temple premises is having an area measuring about 200 Sq. yards and there is no dharamshala constructed therein, though, there are 3-4 rooms in the temple, which are meant for stay of sadhus/sadhvis visiting from outside and Management does not charge any fee/ rent from the visitors for their stay in the aforesaid rooms. He has further deposed during his cross-examination that Management is involved in religious activities such as puja, pravachan etc. As has already been observed hereinabove, the aforesaid testimony of MW-1 has remained uncontroverted during his cross- examination.
30. MW-1, during his cross-examination, has also categorically deposed that Management merely had 2 pujaries and one sweeper at the time of termination of services of Claimant and no other employees had ever been hired by Management. Even the aforesaid testimony of MW-1 has remained uncontroverted indicating that Management is merely a temple engaged purely in religious activities and essentially maintains a non employee LIR No. 1441/2021 Dinesh Kumar Vs. Atma Nand Jain Sabha Award dated 21.03.2025 Page 12 of 21 character and hence while applying triple test laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa & Ors. MANU/SC/0257/1978:
(1978)2SCC 213, Management cannot be said to be engaged in any systematic activities of production and distribution of any goods or services, with the cooperation of employer and employees, for satisfaction of human wants and needs.
31. Claimant, in my considered opinion, has thus failed to discharge his onus to prove that Management is an industry as defined under Section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
32. Issue no. (ii) is thus decided against Claimant.
Issue no. (i): Whether the Claimant falls under the definition of the Workman as per Section 2(s) of the ID Act? OPW
33. Aforesaid issue has been settled in view of objection on the part of Management to the maintainability of present claim on the ground that Claimant was admittedly working with the Management as an Assistant Pujari and hence, does not fall within the definition of Workman U/s 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. A bare perusal of Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 shows that it is necessary for an employee to be a Workman within the meaning of aforesaid provision that that (I) he must be employed in an industry; (ii) to do any manual, skilled, unskilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work; (iii) for hire or reward.
34. In the case in hand, it has already been observed by this Court that Management is not an industry within the meaning of LIR No. 1441/2021 Dinesh Kumar Vs. Atma Nand Jain Sabha Award dated 21.03.2025 Page 13 of 21 Section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and hence even if, it is assumed for the sake of arguments that Claimant was employed by the Management to do any manual, skilled, unskilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, the aforesaid fact by itself cannot bring him within the definition of Workman under Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
35. Ld. AR for Management has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in Pushkar Lal's case (Supra) contending that poojaby a pujari does not fall under the category of any manual, skilled, unskilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work and hence, Pujari, or for that matter, an Assistant Pujari does not fall within the definition of Workman U/s 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. I have carefully gone through the judgment of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in Pushkar Lal's case (supra), wherein, Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has quoted with approval observation of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Sai Bhakta Samaj Vs. Durga Prasad: WP(C) 3731/04 decided on 11.09.2006 to the effect that pooja by Pujari is application of his knowledge of religious hymens and bhajans and aarties which he has to recite in temple and the same cannot be considered to be work as specified in Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by any stretch of imagination and hence, Pujari cannot be considered to be Workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
36. In fact, even Ld. AR of Claimant has also not disputed the aforesaid legal position and he has merely confined his LIR No. 1441/2021 Dinesh Kumar Vs. Atma Nand Jain Sabha Award dated 21.03.2025 Page 14 of 21 submission to the effect that since Claimant was also engaged in performing the work of sweeper besides doing pooja, in the absence of main Pujari of temple, the aforesaid work of Claimant certainly falls under the category of manual work as per the provisions of Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and hence, he should be considered to be a Workman as defined under Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
37. A perusal of record reveals that Claimant has failed to produce any document to prove that he had been working with Management also as a Sweeper in addition to performing his duties as Assistant Pujari at the time of termination of his services by Management. Self serving statement of Claimant to the effect that he was also engaged in the job of cleaning the temple besides doing pooja cannot be accepted by the Court as a proof of the aforesaid fact, without any independent corroboration, considering various contradictions in his testimony vis-a-vis his pleadings in the statement of claim and rejoinder. It is significant to note in this regard that though the Claimant has alleged himself to be in employment of Management since January 1998 till 01.04.2019, however, during his cross-examination, he has taken a contradictory stand, while, alleging that he was once removed from the services of Management in the year 2007 and was again taken back on duty in the year 2008. He has thus deposed during his cross- examination that he had been continuously working with the Management since the year 2008 until his termination in the year 2019.
38. When confronted with suggestion that he has never worked LIR No. 1441/2021 Dinesh Kumar Vs. Atma Nand Jain Sabha Award dated 21.03.2025 Page 15 of 21 with Management as a Safai Karmchari and that he had always worked as Assistant Pujari of the temple run by Management, he has deposed that being an assistant his job also included cleaning of temple besides performing pooja. The aforesaid stand of Claimant is contrary to the stand taken by him in his statement of claim that in the month of January 1998, he was appointed by the Management at the post of Safai Karmchari and after several years, was promoted to the post of Assistant Pujari.
39. Moreover, though, in his rejoinder to the written statement of Management, he has alleged that no undertaking dated 05.06.2017 was ever given by him to Management that he will not be absent without intimation in future, however, when confronted with an undertaking Ex. WW1/M1, during his cross- examination, he has admitted his signatures thereon. Though, he has alleged that contents of the aforesaid document are not in his handwriting and tried to avoid admission of contents of aforesaid document by alleging that Management had obtained his signatures on the document Ex. WW1/M1 under the threat of removal from his services, however, admittedly, no complaint was ever made by him in this regard to any authority.
40. Further, confronted with a voucher Ex. WW1/M2 dated 31.03.2019, during his cross-examination, he has admitted his signatures at points A and C. He has also admitted the endorsement at point B of the aforesaid document to be in his handwriting. On a comparison of handwriting in document Ex. WW-1/M1 with handwriting of endorsement at Point B of document Ex. WW-1/M2, it is apparent that even contents of document Ex. WW1/M1 are in the handwriting of Claimant.
LIR No. 1441/2021Dinesh Kumar Vs. Atma Nand Jain Sabha Award dated 21.03.2025 Page 16 of 21 Moreover, a perusal of document Ex. WW1/M2 shows that Claimant, therein, has acknowledged having received a sum of Rs. 4,530/- from Management in full and final settlement of his dues until 31.03.2019, which is contradictory to his claim in para 4 of the statement of claim, wherein, he has alleged that his services were illegally terminated by Management on 01.04.2019 without paying the earned wages for the month of March 2019.
41. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court finds itself unable to act upon the self serving statement of Claimant in his evidence, regarding nature of his duties as an Assistant pujari of Management, so as record a finding in his favour that he was a Workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 without any independent corroboration, more so, when the testimony of MW-1 to the effect that Claimant was not a Workman but was a Pujari in the temple of Management, despite his lengthy cross-examination, has remained uncontroverted.
42. Even if, it is assumed for the sake of arguments that Claimant was initially appointed by Management as a Safai Karamchari, however, considering the fact that as on the date of termination of his services, he was working as an Assistant Pujari, whose primary duty was to perform pooja, he cannot be said to be a Workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in view of authoritative pronouncement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Sai Bhakta Samaj case (Supra).
LIR No. 1441/2021Dinesh Kumar Vs. Atma Nand Jain Sabha Award dated 21.03.2025 Page 17 of 21
43. In view of aforesaid discussion, in my considered opinion, Claimant has failed to prove that he is a Workman U/s 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 firstly in view of the fact that pooja performed by him does not fall within the category of manual, skilled, unskilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work u/s Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and secondly, in view of the fact that he was not employed in an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
44. Issue no. (i) is thus also decided against Claimant.
Issue no. (iii): Whether the Claimant has already been paid all his dues as stated by the Management in the preliminary objections of the written statement? OPM
45. Onus to prove the aforesaid issue was upon Management. As has already been observed hereinabove, Claimant, during his cross-examination, has admitted the receipt of Rs. 4,530/- from Management on 31.03.2019 in full and final settlement of his dues vide voucher Ex. WW1/M2. Though, he has alleged that the aforesaid amount does not include any service compensation, however, in my considered opinion, since the Claimant is not a Workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Management is not an industry under Section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, provisions of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 requiring payment of service compensation to a Workman at the time his retrenchment from the services are not attracted to the facts of present case so as to make him entitled to any service LIR No. 1441/2021 Dinesh Kumar Vs. Atma Nand Jain Sabha Award dated 21.03.2025 Page 18 of 21 compensation at the time of termination of his services by Management on 01.04.2019.
46. Issue no. (iii) is thus decided in favour of Management.
Issue no. (iv): Whether the services of the Workman were terminated illegally and unauthorizedly on 01.04.2019? OPW
47. Onus to prove the aforesaid issue was upon Claimant. There is no dispute between the parties that the services of Claimant were terminated by Management on 01.04.2019. Though, it is alleged by Claimant that termination of his services by Management on 01.04.2019 was illegal being in violation of provisions of Section 25F and G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, however, Management has taken a plea that his services were lawfully terminated by Management on account of his misconduct in remaining unauthorizedly absent from his duties leading to influx of number of complaints from the devotees of Management temple.
48. It has already been observed hereinabove, Claimant does not fall within the definition of Workman and Management is not an industry and hence, provisions of Section 25F and G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are not attracted to the facts of present case. Termination of services of Workman by Management on 01.04.2019, thus, can not be considered to be illegal for violation of the aforesaid provisions.
49. Issue no. (iv) is thus decided against the Claimant.
Issue no. (v):Whether the Workman is entitled for reinstatement in services with full back wages and continuity of services along with other consequential LIR No. 1441/2021 Dinesh Kumar Vs. Atma Nand Jain Sabha Award dated 21.03.2025 Page 19 of 21 benefits? OPW
50. Onus to prove the aforesaid issue was upon Claimant. In view of my findings on issues no. (i), (ii) and (iv) hereinabove, since Claimant has failed to prove illegal termination of his services by Management, he is not entitled to his reinstatement into the services of Management with or without back wages.
51. Issue no. (v) is thus decided against Claimant.
Issue no. (vi): In terms of reference: "Whether the services of Workman Sh. Dinesh Kumar S/o Sh.
Ganga Ram Yadav have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the Management; if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"
52. As per the terms of reference dated 20.03.2020, this Court is merely required to adjudicate whether services of Claimant were terminated by the Management illegally and unjustifiably and if so, to what relief is he entitled. The aforesaid question has already been answered by this Court as issues no. (iv) and (v) hereinabove against Claimant.
Issue no. (vii): Relief.
53. In view of my findings on issues no. (i) to (vi) hereinabove, Claimant is not entitled to any relief.
54. Present claim is thus dismissed and reference dated 20.03.2020 is answered in negative in the following terms:
"The Claimant Sh. Dinesh Kumar S/o Sh. Ganga Ram Yadav has failed to prove he is a Workman or that Management is an Industry. He has also failed to prove that his services were terminated by Management illegally and/ or unjustifiably and hence, LIR No. 1441/2021 Dinesh Kumar Vs. Atma Nand Jain Sabha Award dated 21.03.2025 Page 20 of 21 he is not entitled to any relief."
55. Ordered accordingly.
56. Requisite number of copies of this award be sent to the competent authority for publication as per rules.
Announced in the open Court on this 21st day of March, 2025.
This award consists of 21 number of signed pages. ARUN Digitally signed by
ARUN KUMAR GARG
KUMAR Date: 2025.03.22
GARG 17:29:42 +05'30'
(ARUN KUMAR GARG)
Presiding Officer Labour Court-III
Rouse Avenue Court, New Delhi
LIR No. 1441/2021
Dinesh Kumar Vs. Atma Nand Jain Sabha
Award dated 21.03.2025 Page 21 of 21