Delhi District Court
Sandeep Kumar vs A S Plastics on 24 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. REKHA
PRESIDING OFFICER : LABOUR COURT - 07
ROUSE AVENUE COURTS : NEW DELHI
LID No. 4145/18
CNR No. DLCT13-005489-2018
Sh. Sandeep Kumar
S/o Sh. Taluk Dar
R/o Village Tikari Khurd,
Narela, Delhi-110040
C/o Santosh Singh, Advocate,
Ch. No. L-8, K.L. Sharma Block,
Gate No. 2, Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi-110054 ............ Workman
VERSUS
M/s. A.S. Plastics
C-367, D.S.I.D.C. Industrial Area,
Narela, Delhi-110040 .......... Management
Date of Institution : 15.12.2018
Date of passing Award : 24.11.2025
AWARD
1. The present statement of claim has been filed by the
claimant/workman U/s 2-A (1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2. The brief facts in narrow compass, relevant and necessary
for the disposal of the present matter, as stated in his Statement
of Claim, are as follows:
LID No. 4145/18 Sandeep Kumar Vs. A.S. Plastics Page 1
i. That the workman had joined the services
of the management since June 2007 as
Karigar and his last drawn wages were Rs.
12,000/- per month. He did his duties with
full dedication and sincerity but the
management did not provide legal facilities
like appointment letter, attendance card,
attendance register, bonus etc. as notified by
the Govt. of NCT of Delhi from time to time.
He used to demand the above-said legal
facilities various time but the management
did not heed to his request. The management
also used to take overtime but did not pay for
the same.
ii. That the workman demanded his various
other legal facilities from the management
repeatedly which annoyed the management
and his services had been terminate on
01.08.2017 illegally, arbitrarily and
unjustifiablly without any notice or
information and also did not pay the
retrenchment compensation, notice pay and
also withheld the earned wages for the period
of 01.07.2017 to 01.08.2017. Thereafter, the
workman visited various times to
management for his reinstatement but all in
vain.
LID No. 4145/18 Sandeep Kumar Vs. A.S. Plastics Page 2
iii. That the workman through his advocate
had sent the demand notice on 24.04.2018 to
the management thereby demanding his
reinstatement and unpaid wages which was
duly served but the management neither
replied nor complied with the said demand
notice. Thereafter, he filed Statement of
claim before the conciliation officer, Labour
Office, Nimri Colony, Ashok Vihar, Delhi
but due to adamant behaviour of the
management, the conciliation failed.
iv. That the workman is unemployed from
the date of his termination and despite his
best efforts, he could not get the job.
v. That It has been prayed by the workman
that he is entitled to be reinstated in service
with full back wages and continuity of his
service along with all consequential benefits
arising therefrom.
3. DEFENCES:
Notice of Statement of Claim was issued to Management
and Management filed its Written Statement in which allegations
leveled in the statement of claim have been denied and certain
preliminary objections have been taken. In the Written Statement,
the management raised following defences:-
i. That the workman had been working with
LID No. 4145/18 Sandeep Kumar Vs. A.S. Plastics Page 3
the management since 03.09.2014 as helper
and his last drawn salary was 9,725/- per
month. The workman was provided with all
the legal facilities since of his appointment
including leaves, bonus, PF, ESI,
appointment letter, wages as per minium
wage rate, name on attendance register etc.
ii. That the workman worked with the
management till 30.05.2017 and thereafter
remained absent in the month of June 2017,
July 2017 & August 2017 and he approached
the management on 01.09.2017 and
requested for payment of all his dues in full
and final. Accordingly, the workman was
paid a sum of Rs. 3565/- which includes
bonus amounting to Rs. 1620/- for the year
2017-18 and 06 days leaves wages for the
year 2017 amounting to Rs. 1945/-. The
workman had also signed the receipt of full
and final settlement in token of having
receiving the full and final dues. Thereafter,
the workman neither contacted the
management nor visited the management's
establishment.
iii. That the management had also sent the
reply dated 21.05.2018 to the demand notice.
LID No. 4145/18 Sandeep Kumar Vs. A.S. Plastics Page 4
The management stands closed w.e.f.
01.04.2018 on account of continuously
recurring loss and then prevailing market
position. Therefore, now the question of
reinstatement of the workman does not arise.
iv. That the workman is gainfully employed
and filed the present claim with the sole
motive of harassing the management and
grabbing unjustifiable monetary gains. There
is also prayer for dismissal of the Statement
of claim.
4. To this Written Statement filed by the Management, the
workman had also filed his Rejoinder. As per the Rejoinder,
contents of the statement of claim have been reiterated and
allegations levelled in the Written Statement have been denied. It
is also stated that the workman has neither settled his account
with the management fully and finally nor signed any alleged
receipt. It is also stated that Reply dated 21.05.2018 to demand
notice sent after about one month of the receipt of demand notice
which clearly shows manipulation on the part of the
management.
5. ISSUES:
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the
following issues were framed on 16.09.2022:-
1. Whether the services of the
claimant/workman were terminated
illegally/and or unjustifiably by the
management OPW
2. Whether the claimant/workman left the job
of management after taking full and final
payment of his service, if so its effect? OPM
3. Whether the management had closed its
establishment on 01.04.2018 in view of
recurring loss? OPM
LID No. 4145/18 Sandeep Kumar Vs. A.S. Plastics Page 5
4. Relief
7. WORKMAN EVIDENCE:
In order to prove his case, the workman stepped into the
witness-box as WW-1. He exhibited his affidavit as Ex.WW1/A
and relied upon the following documents:
Ex.WW1/1 Copy of identity certificate issued by ESIC
(OSR)
Ex.WW1/2 Photocopy of demand notice dated
24.04.2018
Ex.WW1/3 Photocopy of speed post receipt
(OSR)
Ex.WW1/4 Original Failure Report dated 06.12.2018
8. RESPONDENT EVIDENCE:
The Management got examined Sh. Dinesh Chugh S/o Sh. Satpal Chugh as MW-1. He exhibited his affidavit as Ex.MW1/A and relied upon the following documents:
Ex. MW1/1 Letter of appointment (OSR) Ex.MW1/2 Full and Final settlement Receipt (OSR) Ex. MW1/3 Attendance Record April 2017 to October (colly 14 2017 pages) (OSR) Ex.MW1/4 Reply to demand notice and postal receipt (OSR) Ex. MW1/5 ESI Return October 2015 to March 2018 LID No. 4145/18 Sandeep Kumar Vs. A.S. Plastics Page 6 (colly 20 pages) (OSR) Ex. MW1/6 ESI returns from April 2009 to September (colly 44 2015 pages) (OSR) Ex. MW1/7 Attendance register from November 2016 to (Colly 10 March 2017 pages) (OSR) Ex. MW1/8 Intimation of closure to ESI (OSR) Ex. MW1/9 Intimation of Closure to EPFO (OSR) Ex. MW1/10 Intimation dated 24.10.2019 of Cancellation (colly 4 of GST pages) (OSR) Ex. MW1/11 Reply filed before the Conciliation Officer (OSR) Ex. MW1/12 Rejoinder filed by the workman before (colly 5 conciliation officer pages) (OSR)
9. I have heard the arguments and perused the material available on record.
10. The issue-wise findings are as under :11. ISSUE No. 2
2. Whether the claimant/workman left the job of LID No. 4145/18 Sandeep Kumar Vs. A.S. Plastics Page 7 management after taking full and final payment of his service, if so its effect? OPM Since this issue will impact the remaining issue, hence it is being decided first.
The onus to prove issue no. 1 was conferred upon the management/respondent.
Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to mention here that so far as the relationship of employee-employer between the Workman and Management is concerned, the same has been categorically admitted by the Management in its evidence by way of affidavit.
In order to discharge its onus, MW1-Dinesh Chugh deposed that the workman had been working with the management since 03.09.2014 as helper and his last drawn salary was 9,725/-. The workman worked with the management till 30.05.2017 and thereafter remained absent in the month of June 2017, July 2017 & August 2017 and he approached the management on 01.09.2017 and requested for payment of all his dues in full and final. Accordingly, he was paid a sum of Rs. 3565/- which includes bonus amounting to Rs. 1620/- for the year 2017-18 and 06 days leaves wages for the year 2017 amounting to Rs. 1945/-. the workman had also signed the receipt of full and final settlement in token of having receiving the full and final dues. Thereafter, the workman neither contacted the management nor visited the management's establishment.
LID No. 4145/18 Sandeep Kumar Vs. A.S. Plastics Page 8 On the other hand, WW1/workman deposed that he had joined the services of the management in June 2007 as Karigar with last drawn wages of Rs. 12000/- per month. The management did not provide the legal facilities viz appointment letter, attendance card, attendance register, bonus etc. The management had only provided only ESIC coverage and ESIC temporary identity certificate. The workman demanded various other legal facilities from the management repeatedly which annoyed the management and the management had terminated his services on 01.08.2017 illegally, arbitrarily and unjustifiably without any notice or information.
It is relevant to pen down here that the management, in order to prove that the workman has settled his account in full and final, has relied upon the copy of alleged Full and final Settlement Receipt Ex. MW1/2 (OSR).
It is worthy to note here that during the cross-examination of MW1-Dinesh Chugh, Ex. MW1/DX2 was shown to him and after going through it, he stated that copy of this document has already been Ex. MW1/2. He also stated that MW1/DX2 was written by him and it was prepared on 01.09.2017 at the time of giving full and final payment to the workman and the workman worked with the management till 30.05.2017. He also stated that an amount of Rs. 3065/- is shown in Ex. MW1/DX2 was towards leave encashment and bonus. He denied the suggestion that the workman did not leave the job with the management. No written resignation was given by the workman to the management and voluntarily said that the workman orally requested the management/ respondent for giving full and final settlement amount as he was not willing to work with the management. He denied the suggestion that LID No. 4145/18 Sandeep Kumar Vs. A.S. Plastics Page 9 MW1/DX2 is false, forged and fabricated document.
It is very very relevant to pen down here that during the cross- examination, WW1/workman denied the suggestion that he had left the the job in the management on 01.09.2017 and voluntarily said that his services were terminated by the management on 01.08.2017.
It is worthy to note here that during the cross-examination of WW1/workman, ld. AR of the management had shown the original payment receipt dated 01.09.2017 but the workman has denied his signature thereon.
Here, it is said that had the alleged payment receipt dated 01.09.2017 Ex. MW1/DX2 (Ex. MW1/2) actually bore the signature of the workman/claimant and the workman flatly refused to accept that his signature bore on alleged original payment receipt dated 01.09.2017 Ex. MW1/DX2 (Ex. MW1/2) then the management should have moved an application for taking opinion of handwriting expert for verification of alleged signatures of workman on Ex. MW1/DX2 (Ex. MW1/2) to substantiate its defence but the management chose otherwise. In other words, the management has failed to prove that the alleged payment receipt dated 01.09.2017 Ex. MW1/DX2 (Ex. MW1/2) bears the signature of the claimant/workman.
It is also worthwhile to mention here that no other document has been proved on record by the management which shows that the claimant/workman had left the job of the management after taking his full and final payment of his service.
In light of above, it is said that the Management has utterly LID No. 4145/18 Sandeep Kumar Vs. A.S. Plastics Page 10 failed to discharge its onus to prove that the claimant/workman left the job of the management after taking his full and final payment of his service.
Hence, issue no. 2 is decided against the management and in favour of the workman.
12. ISSUE No. 11. Whether the services of the claimant/workman were terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management? OPW The onus to prove this issue was conferred upon the workman/claimant.
In order to discharge its onus, the workman/WW1 deposed that he had joined the services of the management since June 2017 as Karigar and his last drawn wages were Rs. 12,000/- per month. He did his duties with full dedication and sincerity but the management did not provide legal facilities like appointment letter, attendance card, attendance register, bonus etc. as notified by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi from time to time. He used to demand orally the above-said legal facilities various time but the management did not heed to his request. The management had provided ESIC facility to him. The management also used to take overtime but did not pay for the same. The workman demanded his various other legal facilities from the management repeatedly which annoyed the management and his services had been terminate on 01.08.2017 illegally, arbitrarily and unjustifiablly LID No. 4145/18 Sandeep Kumar Vs. A.S. Plastics Page 11 without any notice or information and also did not pay the retrenchment compensation and notice pay and also withheld the earned wages for the period of 01.07.2017 to 01.08.2017. Thereafter, the workman visited various times to management to take him back but all in vain. He also deposed that he through his advocate had sent the demand notice on 24.04.2018 to the management thereby demanding reinstatement and unpaid wages which was duly served but the management neither replied nor complied with the said demand notice. Thereafter, he filed Statement of claim before the conciliation officer, Labour Office, Nimri Colony, Ashok Vihar, Delhi but due to adamant behaviour of the management, the conciliation failed.
On the other hand, the management got examined Sh. Dinesh Chughas MW01. He deposed that the workman had been working with the management since 03.09.2014 as helper and his last drawn salary was 9,725/-. The workman was provided with all the legal facilities since of his appointment leaves, bonus, PF, ESI, appointment letter, wages as per minium wages, name on attendance register, wages on wages register etc. The workman worked with the management till 30.05.2017 and thereafter remained absent in the month of June 2017, July 2017 & August 2017 and he approached the management on 01.09.2017 and requested for payment of all his dues in full and final. Accordingly, he was paid a sum of Rs. 3565/- which includes bonus amounting to Rs. 1620/- for the year 2017-18 and 06 days leaves wages for the year 2017 amounting to Rs. 1945/-. the LID No. 4145/18 Sandeep Kumar Vs. A.S. Plastics Page 12 workman had also signed the receipt of full and final settlement in token of having receiving the full and final dues. Thereafter, the workman neither contacted the management nor visited the management's establishment. The management had also sent the reply dated 21.05.2018 to the demand notice on 22.05.2018.
The Court has already given its opinion that the management has failed to prove that the claimant/workman had left the job of the management after taking his full and final payment of his service.
So far as the abandonment of job is concerned, it means voluntary and absolute relinquishment of job. The failure to perform duties must be with actual or imputed intention, on the part of the employee to abandon and relinquish the job. Temporary absence is not ordinarily sufficient to constitute an abandonment of office. In Buckingham Co. Vs. Venkatiah & Ors .
(1964) 4 SCR 265 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held 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 LID No. 4145/18 Sandeep Kumar Vs. A.S. Plastics Page 13 circumstances of each case.
It is relevant to pen down here that during the cross- examination, WW1/workman denied the suggestion that he had left the job in the management on 01.09.2017 and voluntarily said that his services were terminated by the management on 01.08.2017.
Now even if it is presumed for the sake of arguments that the Workman himself had stopped coming to the office, then it was the duty of the Management to ask him to join duty because it is settled law that if a workman fails to report for duty, the Management is bound to call upon him to join duty. It has been held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in M/s. Fateh Chand Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court & Anr., 2012(3) SCT 724 as follows:
"It is also no more res integra that even in a case of unauthorized absenteeism or to prove abandonment of service on the part of the workman the management must place on record necessary material to prove that enough efforts were made by it to call upon the workman to resume back his duty and the workman has shown his clear reluctance for the same."
It is worthy to note here that MW1-Dinesh Chugh deposed that since the workman has already collected dues in full and final so nothing is due upon the management and since firm is closed from 01.04.2018 so no re-employment either on fresh basis or in continuity can be offered or proposed. Further, during the cross- examination, he stated that no correspondence was done with the LID No. 4145/18 Sandeep Kumar Vs. A.S. Plastics Page 14 workman by the management regarding his absence and voluntarily said that as the workman himself left the management company against the full and final settlement, hence, no correspondence was done.
Further, nothing came on record which shows that the management verbally or telephonically told to the workman to resume his duty.
It has been held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Sukhvir Singh & Ors., 53 (1994) DLT 821 that when the employment of the Workman is not for a specific period, then the denial of employment to him by the employer/management shall have to be only according to law and if the Workman has abandoned the employment, certainly that could have been a ground for holding an enquiry against him and passing appropriate order.
It has been held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Fateh Chand's case (supra) as follows:
"It is also a settled legal position that abandonment of service is different from absenteeism. Abandonment of service is the voluntarily relinquishment of one's services with the intention not to resume the same. It is a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of each case and mere absenteeism for a continuous period does not mean that the employee has abandoned his service. The management has to bring on record sufficient material to show that the employee has abandoned the service and abandonment cannot be attributed to the employee without there being sufficient evidence. On the failure to report for duty, the management has to call upon the employee and if he refuses to report, then an LID No. 4145/18 Sandeep Kumar Vs. A.S. Plastics Page 15 enquiry is required to be ordered against him and accordingly action taken. In the absence of anything placed on record by the petitioner management, no presumption against the respondent can be drawn."
In the present case, it is not the case of the management that the workman was charge-sheeted or any domestic Enquiry was held as per law against the workman after alleged abandonment of the job and nothing has been mentioned regarding the Domestic Enquiry or charge-sheet against the workman in Written Statement and testimony of MW1 filed on behalf of the management. Furthermore, no document has been proved on record by the management that any Domestic Enquiry was held or any charge-sheet was framed against the workman. The management also failed to produce any resignation letter of the workman. Further, nothing has been proved on record which suggests that the workman amicably left the job at his own will.
At this juncture, the reference may be made to the definition of retrenchment as contained in Section 2 (oo) of Industrial Disputes Act which 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 LID No. 4145/18 Sandeep Kumar Vs. A.S. Plastics Page 16 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;]
13. Clearly, retrenchment means termination for any reason whatsoever. The present case does not fall within the exceptions contained in the said provision. Therefore, I am of the view that this is a case of retrenchment and the management was bound to comply with the provisions of Section 25F and Section 25G of ID Act which read as follows:
25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until-
(a) the workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice;
(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay [for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six LID No. 4145/18 Sandeep Kumar Vs. A.S. Plastics Page 17 months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government [or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].
25G.Procedure for retrenchment.--Where any workman in an industrial establishment, who is a citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workmen in that establishment, in the absence of any agreement between the employer and the workman in this behalf, the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last person to be employed in that category, unless for reasons to be recorded the employer retrenches any other workman.
Nothing came on record which suggests that the management has given any notice to workman prior to his retrenchment. Further, the management has not relied upon any such notice. Furthermore, it is not the case of the management that the management has conducted any domestic enquiry against the alleged absenteeism/abandonment of the services by the workman. Thus, it amounts to illegal termination of his services of the workman. Since the Management had neither issued any prior notice to the Workman nor given any notice pay or retrenchment compensation to him nor given any notice in accordance with Sec.25-F(c) of Industrial Disputes Act to the appropriate government, therefore, it is held that the workman did not abandon the job himself and termination of his services LID No. 4145/18 Sandeep Kumar Vs. A.S. Plastics Page 18 by the Management was illegal.
Hence, issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the workman and against the management.
14. ISSUE No. 33. Whether the management had closed its establishment on 01.04.2018 in view of recurring loss? OPM The onus to prove this issue was conferred upon the management/respondent.
MW1-Dinesh Chugh deposed that he is proprietor of the management and the management stands closed w.e.f. 01.04.2018 on account of continuously recurring loss and then prevailing market position. He informed to the ESI, EPF and GST deptt. regarding the closure of the firm. Now he is not doing business of manufacturing of footwear which he used to do in the firm.
It is relevant to pen down here that management, in order to prove that management firm has been closed down its operation, has relied upon copy of intimation to closure to ESIC Ex. MW1/8 (OSR), copy of Intimation to closure to EPFO Ex. MW1/9 (OSR) and intimation dated 24.10.2019 of cancellation of GST Ex. MW1/10 (colly 4 pages) (OSR).
I have gone through the above said documents exhibits Ex. MW1/8 and EX. MW1/9. Perusal of the same, it is found that they are merely letters allegedly written to the the Joint Director, ESIC (EX. MW1/8) and RPFC EPFO (EX. MW1/9).
Here, it is said that only alleged giving intimation to the EPFO and LID No. 4145/18 Sandeep Kumar Vs. A.S. Plastics Page 19 ESIC vide alleged letters do not prove that the management has closed its business.
So far as Ex. MW1/10 is concerned, perusal of the same, it is found that it is printout allegedly issued by the GST Department which does not bear the signature of anyone.
Here, it is said that the management should have called from the GST Department to authenticate this document but the management chose otherwise. In other words, it is said that the management has failed to prove the above-said alleged document Ex. MW1/10.
Further, no other document has been proved on record to show that the management has closed its operation.
In light of above, it is considered view of the Court that the management has failed to prove that it had closed its establishment on 01.04.2018 in view of alleged recurring loss.
Hence, issue No. 3 is decided against the management and in favour of the workman.
15. RELIEF:
The Workman has prayed for his reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service with all consequential benefits.
It is worthwhile to mention here that there is dispute regarding date of joining and last drawn salary.
It is worthwhile to mention here that the workman has LID No. 4145/18 Sandeep Kumar Vs. A.S. Plastics Page 20 claimed in his Statement of claim that he had been working with the management since June 2007. In response of this para, in reply on merit, it is stated that in Written Statement that the workman had been working for the management since 03.09.2014 as a helper.
Further, during the cross-examination, MW1-Dinesh Chugh denied the suggestion that the workman joined respondent/management in the year June 2007 as a Karigar with last drawn salary of Rs. 12,000/- per month.
It is relevant to pen down here that the workman has relied upon copy of identity certificate issued by ESIC EX. WW1/1 (OSR).
Perusal of the same, it is found that date of appointment has been mentioned as 03.09.2014.
Here, it is said that from own document of the workman, it is crystally clear that date of appointment of the workman was 03.09.2014.
In light of above, this Court considers the date of joining of the workman as 03.09.2014.
It is also relevant to pen down here that the workman has claimed in his Statement of claim that his last drawn salary was Rs. 12,000/- per month. In response of this para, it is stated in LID No. 4145/18 Sandeep Kumar Vs. A.S. Plastics Page 21 parawise reply on merits in the Written Statement that last drawn rate of wages of the workman was Rs. 9,725/- per month.
During the cross-examination, MW1-Dinesh Chugh denied the suggestion that the workman joined respondent/management in the year June 2007 as a Karigar with last drawn salary of Rs. 12,000/- per month.
It is relevant to pen down here that no document has been proved on record by the workman that his monthly salary was Rs. 12,000/- per month.
In light of above, this Court considers the monthly salary of Rs. 9,725/- per month.
Now coming to the reinstatement of workman with full back wages.
In the present case, the Workman/WW-1 had specifically deposed in his affidavit of evidence that he is unemployed since the date of his illegal termination and despite his best efforts, he could not get a job. Further, during the cross-examination, WW1/workman stated that he remain idle siting at his home andhe was not doing any work and he did not try to search any job.. Thus, the onus had shifted to the Management to prove the contrary. The Management was required to lead cogent evidence of gainful employment of the Workman during the interregnum period. But the Management has failed to do so.
LID No. 4145/18 Sandeep Kumar Vs. A.S. Plastics Page 22 Thus, there is no evidence from the side of Management regarding gainful employment of the Workman, whereas nothing came from the cross-examination of the workman that he was gainfully employed somewhere. Hence, it is clear that the Management has failed to prove that the Workman was gainfully employed after illegal termination of his employment.
12. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Indian Hydraulic Industries Pvt. Ltd v. Krishan Devi and Bhagwati Devi & Ors., ILR (2007) I Delhi 219 has held that:
"even if the termination of a person is held illegal, Labour Court is not supposed to direct reinstatement along with full back wages and the relief can be moulded according to the facts and circumstances of each case. The Court has to adopt a pragmatic approach and take into account the allegations made by the work-women, the nature of contribution by the work-women to the industry, the time gap and averments made about the unemployment and proof of unemployment as the relevant factors to be considered in such cases. The Labor Court can allow compensation to the workman instead of reinstatement and back wages."
13. In K.V Anil Mithra and Anr. v. Sree Sankracharya University of Sanskrit and Anr., Civil Appeal No(S).9067 of 2014 DoD 27.10.2021, it has been further held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that:
LID No. 4145/18 Sandeep Kumar Vs. A.S. Plastics Page 23 "What appropriate relief the workman may be entitled for regarding non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act 1947 has been discussed in various cases and the ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with full back wages, when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied mechanically in all cases".
Though in case of illegal termination of services, the general rule is of reinstatement, but in view of above judgements and in fact and circumstances of the case, this Court is of considered opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by passing order of reinstatement. Hence, in these facts and circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that the ends of justice would sufficiently meet if a lumpsum compensation is granted to the Workman.
16. As per Sec.25-F, the employer is bound to give to Workman, at the time of retrenchment, one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof and a compensation equivalent to 15 days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service. This Court is of considered opinion that the Workman should be also paid suitable compensation as he has dragged into litigating with the Management for the long period of almost 7 years and has undergone sufferings. Hence, considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of considered opinion that a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) LID No. 4145/18 Sandeep Kumar Vs. A.S. Plastics Page 24 would sufficiently meet the ends of justice. The aforesaid amount shall be paid by the Management to the Workman within 30 days of publication of this Award, failing which the Management shall be liable to pay interest @ 8% per annum on the aforesaid amount from the date of Award till the date of realization.
17. Award is passed accordingly. Copy of this Award be sent to Labour Commissioner for publication. File be consigned to the Digitally signed by Record Room after due compliance. REKHA REKHA Date:
2025.11.26 15:47:15 +0530 Announced in the open Court (REKHA) th on 24 November, 2024 Presiding Officer Labour Court - 07 Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi LID No. 4145/18 Sandeep Kumar Vs. A.S. Plastics Page 25