Delhi District Court
Sh. Chandersen vs Ms Inter Continental Service Agency ... on 8 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF
PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT-01:
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT: NEW DELHI
Presided Over by: Mr. Neeraj Gaur, DHJS
LIR No. 5543/2016
CNR No. DLCT130038952014
In the matter of:
Sh. Chandersen
S/o Sh. Dayaram
R/o J-478, Block-B, JJ Colony,
Sector-10, Noida, Gautam
Budh Nagar, UP-201301
Mobile No. not provided.
.....Claimant/Workman
Details of an immediate family member of claimant/workman:
Not Provided.
Details of Authorized Representative of claimant/workman :
Name: Mr. Umesh Dubey
Mobile No.: 9818981841
Email ID : [email protected]
VERSUS
M/s Inter Continental Service
Agency Buraeu Ltd.
A-7, Inner Circle, Connaught Place,
New Delhi-110001.
.....Management
Details of the Authorized Representative of management :
Name: Mr. Ravi Aggarwal
Mobile No.: 9711859466
E-mail ID of management: Not provided.
LIR No.5543/2016
Chandersen Vs. M/s Intercontinental Service Agency Bureau Ltd.
Page No. 1 of 18
Date of Receipt of Reference : 15.07.2014
Date of Award : 08.01.2026
AWARD
1. A reference was received from the then Deputy Labour
Commissioner, New Delhi District, Labour Department,
Government of NCT of Delhi vide its order No.
F-24(41)/DLC/NDD/2014/207 dated 11.07.2014 under
Section 10(1)(c) and 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 regarding an industrial dispute between Sh.
Chandersen (hereinafter referred to as
'claimant/workman') and the management of M/s Inter
Continental Service Agency Buraeu Ltd. (hereinafter
referred to as 'management') with the following terms of
reference:
"Whether services of Sh. Chandersen S/o Sh.
Dayaram has been terminated illegally and /or
unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what
relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary
in this respect?"
2. After receipt of reference, notice was issued to the
claimant/workman who filed his statement of claim.
Facts as per statement of claim
3. Briefly, the claimant/workman has stated that he was appointed by the management on 10.09.1996 as pantry boy cum electrician on muster roll and his last drawn salary was Rs.7,110/- pm. The applicant/workman performed his duties fairly and no warning or disciplinary action has ever been issued or communicated to him. The LIR No.5543/2016 Chandersen Vs. M/s Intercontinental Service Agency Bureau Ltd.
Page No. 2 of 18applicant/workman was not provided any statutory benefits by the management as required under law, such as minimum wages, appointment letter, salary slip, leave book, weekly and national holidays travel allowance, timely payment of his wages, etc. for which the claimant/workman used to demand from the management orally. The management had provided ESI benefit to workman only in October 2002 in which his date of joining was shown as 01.10.2002 which was objected to by the workman but the the management told him that this was their departmental matter and this would not affect his service and his date of joining would remain as 10.09.1996. On 18.10.2005, while performing his duties, the applicant/workman suffered an accident due to negligence of the management as he was putting decoration lights on the showroom gate which broke down causing serious injury on ribs of the claimant/workman. After treatment, claimant/workman returned to his job and demanded for wages, promotion, etc. from the management but the management out of grudge, illegally terminated the services of claimant/workman on 15.03.2012. Thereafter, claimant/workman approached the Labour Department to get his job back but the management did not cooperate with Labour Department nor reinstated him back to services and reference was sent to this court. When services of the workman/claimant were terminated, his job was given to his junior workers who were already working with the management.
LIR No.5543/2016Chandersen Vs. M/s Intercontinental Service Agency Bureau Ltd.
Page No. 3 of 184. It is further stated that the claimant/workman continued going to his work place but the management neither reinstated him on services nor paid him his wages nor his attendance was marked on the muster roll. The workman is unemployed since 15.03.2012 as his services were terminated by the management and he has no source of income. Despite his efforts, he is unable to get any job hence, the present claim seeking reinstatement with full back-wages, continuity of service and all consequential benefits and an interest @ 18 % on the back-wages be also awarded in favor of the workman.
5. Notice was issued to management and the management entered into appearance on 23.08.2016 through its AR. Despite opportunities, management did not file any reply/WS due to which, the management was proceeded with ex-parte vide order dt.04.10.2016. Thereafter, on an application filed on behalf of management, the ex-parte order was set aside subject to a cost vide order dt.20.12.2016 and reply filed by the management was taken on record.
Facts as per the reply of management In its reply, the management raised various preliminary objections denying all the allegations leveled by the workman and stated that the applicant has concealed various important facts and the applicant placed only those facts which are favorable to him. The management is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having LIR No.5543/2016 Chandersen Vs. M/s Intercontinental Service Agency Bureau Ltd.
Page No. 4 of 18registered office at 25/1, A- Block, Middle Circle Connaught Place, New Delhi and was operating retail outlet/boutique/jewelry showroom of Tanishq under a Consignment agreement with Titan Industries Ltd. at its premises A-7, Inner Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 from 1996 to August, 2008.
6. It is further stated that the workman/applicant had joined the management as peon on 22.12.1996 and on termination of the Consignment Agreement with Titan Industries Ltd. in August, 2008, the management made full and final payment and settlement of all its employees including the workman on 31.10.2008 by paying all their dues till date of full and final payment including gratuity, bonus, leave encashment, etc.. The management paid a sum of Rs.21,720/- to the workman towards his full and final settlement vide chque No.949049 dt.04.09.2008 drawn on Canara Bank. Thereafter, at workman's request and his past longevity in the company/management, he was again appointed by the company/management as peon in April, 2011 as after termination of the abovesaid Consignment Agreement with Titan Industries Ltd., the management had started its retail outlet/boutique of jewelry showroom under its trademark/brand name Takshh from the same premises at A-7, Inner Circle, Coannaught Place, New Delhi as well as at G-59, Sector-18, Noida.
7. It is further stated that the workman continued to work at the said jewelry showroom Takshh till February, 2012. However, suddenly from 1st March, 2012, the workman LIR No.5543/2016 Chandersen Vs. M/s Intercontinental Service Agency Bureau Ltd.
Page No. 5 of 18stopped coming to his job without any intimation or sending leave application to the company/management. The HR Manager had called the workman several times to ask about his absence from work but the workman never responded to such calls. After waiting for over 2 months, management provided 2 opportunities to the workman through its then HR Manager by sending him notices dt.05.05.2012 and 19.05.2012 to intimate the reason for his absence from work within 10 days of the notices. It was also mentioned in the notices that if no response was received from the workman then it will be deemed that the workman was no longer interested in working with the management. In absence of any response from workman, he was given another opportunity vide notice dt.29.05.2012 wherein it was stated that since workman did not respond to the previous 2 notices, the management has given to understand that the workman was not interested in working with the management and in such circumstances, the workman was deemed to be relieved from the management w.e.f 01.03.2012. Management had again waited for about 1 ½ months after sending the said notice dt.29.05.2012 waiting to hear from the workman but he did not respond to any of the notices which constrained the management to send the termination notice dt.12.07.2012 to the workman. Vide said termination notice, management made it clear that the workman was absent since 01.03.2012 without intimation or leave application and management sent 3 notices to workman LIR No.5543/2016 Chandersen Vs. M/s Intercontinental Service Agency Bureau Ltd.
Page No. 6 of 18and his employment with management was being terminated due to his absence from 01.03.2012 to 29.05.2012. All the dues of the workman towards his salary, allowance, bonus including ESI, PF, leaves etc. had been paid till March, 2012.
8. It is further stated that in the financial year 2013-14, the management had to close both its retail outlet/boutique of jewelry showroom Takshh at Connaught Place and Sector-18, Noida due to very low sale and losses in that business and since 01.04.2014, there is no business in the management. Further, on the one hand, the workman left the management on its own without sending any intimation or leave application which constrained the respondent company to terminate his job and on the other hand, after one year of termination, workman started filing complaints against the management before various forums including Labour Commissioner (South), New Delhi making false and baseless allegations just to blackmail and extract money from the management. It is further stated that the workman himself being a defaulter did not get any relief from the office of Labour Commissioner and he filed the present complaint through Labour Association to blackmail and pressurize the management to accede to his illegal demands. It is further asserted that when workman got injured as asserted by him at para no.5, he was in intoxicated state and there was no negligence on the part of the management and the management had incurred medical expenses of Rs.60,000/- towards treatment and LIR No.5543/2016 Chandersen Vs. M/s Intercontinental Service Agency Bureau Ltd.
Page No. 7 of 18good health of the workman. It is further an admitted position that the workman had worked till August, 2008 (i.e. for a period of around 3 years after his injury) with the management and upon termination of Consignment Agreement with Titan, his full and final settlement was made in October, 2008 and he again joined the management in April, 2011 and left the job on his own from March, 2012 without intimation to the management. On merits, the averments made in the statement of claim have been denied, contents of preliminary objections have been reiterated and rejection of claim has been sought.
Facts as per the replication In his replication, the workman denied all the averments made in the written statement.
Issues
9. After completion of pleadings, the following issues were framed vide order dated 20.02.2017:
1. Whether the workman had been in the service to the management since 10.09.1996 as a Pantry Boy- Electrician as claimed by the workman? OPW
2. Whether the applicant joined the respondent company as a Peon on 22-12-1996 and on termination of the consignment agreement with the Titan Industries Ltd in August, 2008, the management had made full and final payment and settlement of the claimant/workman on 31-08-2008 by paying all his dues towards full and final payment including gratuity, bonus, leave encashment etc., amounting to Rs. 21,720/- through LIR No.5543/2016 Chandersen Vs. M/s Intercontinental Service Agency Bureau Ltd.Page No. 8 of 18
cheque bearing no. 949049 dated 04-09-2008 drawn on Canara Bank, New Delhi, if so its effect? OPM
3. Whether the applicant/claimant was again appointed by the management as a Peon in the month of April, 2011 as after the termination of consignment agreement with the Titan Industries Ltd., the respondent company had started its retail outlet/boutique of jewellery showroom under its trademark/brand name Takshh from the same premises at A-7, Inner Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi as well as rented premises at G-59, Sector-18, Noida and the applicant continued to work till February, 2012 as claimed by the management, if so its effect? OPM
4. Whether the workman himself absented from the duty of the management w.e.f. 01-03-2012 of his own without any intimation to the management and remained absent thereafter and did not join the services of the management despite notices dated 05-05-2012, 19-05-2012 and 29-05-2012 and thereby himself abandoned the job, if so its effect? OPM
5. Whether the services of the workman have been terminated by the management illegally/ unjustifiably? OPW
6. Whether the workman is entitled to the relief claimed?
OPW
7. Relief.
Workman Evidence
10. To prove his case, the workman tendered his evidence affidavit i.e. Ex.WW-1/A and relied upon the documents :
LIR No.5543/2016Chandersen Vs. M/s Intercontinental Service Agency Bureau Ltd.Page No. 9 of 18
copy of complaint dt.23.08.2012 made before Labour Department i.e. Ex.WW1/1, copy of Labour Insp. Report dt.20.11.2012 i.e. Ex.WW1/2, print slip of ESI Card i.e. Ex.WW1/3, original letters dt.22.04.2018, 31.05.2018, 03.07.2006, 17.03.2007 i.e. Ex.WW1/4 to Ex.WW1/7 respectively photocopy of form-V ESI as Mark A, copy of ESI Card i.e. Mark B & C. He was duly cross-examined on behalf of the management, during which, inter-alia copy of letter dt.12.06.1995 was marked as Mark X. Management Evidence
11. The management examined Mr. Manish Prakash, AR of management as MW-1, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.MW-1/A and relied upon the copy of letter dt.04.09.2008 vide which the full and final settlement amount was paid to the claimant i.e. Ex.RW1/1, copy of ledger account of management i.e. Ex.RW1/2, copy of bank statement of management i.e. Ex.RW1/3, copy of letters dt.05.05.2012, 19.05.2012 and 29.05.2012 i.e. Ex.RW1/4 to Ex.RW1/6, copy of postal receipt for letter dt.29.05.2012 i.e. Ex.WW1/7, letter dt.12.07.2012 alongwith postal receipt i.e. Ex.RW1/8 (colly) and copies of details of expenses incurred by management alongwith medical bills and company voucher i.e. Ex.RW-1/9 (Colly). He was duly cross-examined on behalf of the workman.
Final Arguments
12. Final arguments were then advanced by the Ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties which have been carefully LIR No.5543/2016 Chandersen Vs. M/s Intercontinental Service Agency Bureau Ltd.
Page No. 10 of 18considered alongwith the evidence on record.
13. Written arguments filed by the parties also considered. The issue wise findings are as under:
Issue no. 1. - Whether the workman had been in the service to the management since 10.09.1996 as a Pantry Boy-Electrician as claimed by the workman? OPW Issue no.2 - Whether the applicant joined the respondent company as a Peon on 22-12-1996 and on termination of the consignment agreement with the Titan Industries Ltd in August, 2008, the management had made full and final payment and settlement of the claimant/workman on 31-08-2008 by paying all his dues towards full and final payment including gratuity, bonus, leave encashment etc., amounting to Rs. 21,720/- through cheque bearing no. 949049 dated 04-09-2008 drawn on Canara Bank, New Delhi, if so its effect? OPM
14. Both the issues are connected and can be decided through a common discussion hence, they are being taken up together.
15. The workman has asserted that he has been in continuous service of the management since 10.09.1996 till the time, he was terminated on 15.03.2012. Whereas the case of the management is that the workman was initially appointed as a peon on 22.12.1996. On termination of the consignment agreement of the management with Tata Industries Ltd. in August, 2008, the management made full and final payment to the workman on 31.10.2008 by paying entire payment including gratuity, bonus, leave encashment, etc. through a cheque of Rs.21,720/-. As per the management, the workman was re-employed as peon in April, 2011 at its LIR No.5543/2016 Chandersen Vs. M/s Intercontinental Service Agency Bureau Ltd.
Page No. 11 of 18retail outlet at Inner Circle, Connaught Place as well as at Noida but the workman abandoned the services from 01.03.2012.
16. Ld. AR for the management argued that in the WS, the management has clearly asserted about the full and final settlement of 2008 and the payment to the workman. In the rejoinder, the workman has denied not only the full and final settlement but also of the payment. The workman however admitted in his cross-examination that he had encashed the cheque of Rs.21,720/- which clearly establishes that the workman has made a false denial of the full and final settlement.
17. Ld. AR for the workman argued that the workman had received the aforesaid amount not towards full and final settlement but in respect of medical bills for the injuries suffered by him in 2005.
18. I have considered the rival submissions and gone through the record. In his cross-examination, the workman has admitted that he had deposited cheque for Rs.21,720/- and had encashed the same. He has propounded a story that too only at the stage of final arguments that this payment was for some medical bills and not towards full and final settlement. In the pleadings of the management, they have made a specific preliminary submission in para 3 regarding the payment of cheque towards full and final settlement after clearing all the dues of the workman. In response to this paragraph, the workman has made a bald denial in the LIR No.5543/2016 Chandersen Vs. M/s Intercontinental Service Agency Bureau Ltd.
Page No. 12 of 18rejoinder stating that the submission is false, concocted and baseless and he never took full and final amount. The workman however has not given any explanation regarding the payment received by him nor has he propounded the story of the payment for medical bills. It is pertinent to note that the workman has admitted in his cross- examination that the management took care of his medical expenses for the accidental injuries suffered by him. It implies that there were no arrears of medical bills. Moreover, the injuries suffered by the workman was in the year 2005 whereas the payment received by him was in the year 2008. I am not inclined to believe that the said payment was towards the arrears of medical bills which were as old as of 3 years.
19. From the evidence proved on record and the pleadings of the parties, I am of the view that the management has been able to establish that the services of the workman were initially terminated after payment of full and final settlement. Issue no.1 and 2 are accordingly decided in favor of the management and against the workman.
Issue No.3 - Whether the applicant/claimant was again appointed by the management as a Peon in the month of April, 2011 as after the termination of consignment agreement with the Titan Industries Ltd., the respondent company had started its retail outlet/boutique of jewellery showroom under its trademark/brand name Takshh from the same premises at A-7, Inner Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi as well as rented premises at G-59, Sector-18, Noida and the applicant continued to LIR No.5543/2016 Chandersen Vs. M/s Intercontinental Service Agency Bureau Ltd.
Page No. 13 of 18work till February, 2012 as claimed by the management, if so its effect? OPM
20. In view of the findings of issue no.1 and 2, it has been fully established that the services of the workman which initially started in 1996 came to an end in August, 2008. The subsequent appointment of the workman has to be treated as a re-employment. The question remains as to when this re-employment commenced. As per the workman, there was continuity of service since 1996 whereas as per the management, the workman was re- employed in April, 2011. The management has relied upon the ESI Card relied by the workman himself as Ex.WW1/3 which bears the date of appointment as 2011.
21. The workman himself has proved his ESI Card Ex.WW1/3 where his date of appointment as 01.04.2011 with the name of the employer as that of the management. In this identity certificate, the names and details of the previous employer are filled up as "none". This document supports the version of the management that the workman was re- employed on 01.04.2011. The effect thereof is that the length of service of the workman has to be reckoned from 01.04.2011. The issue no.3 is accordingly decided in favor of the management.
Issue No.4 - Whether the workman himself absented from the duty of the management w.e.f. 01-03-2012 of his own without any intimation to the management and remained absent thereafter and did not join the services of the management despite LIR No.5543/2016 Chandersen Vs. M/s Intercontinental Service Agency Bureau Ltd.
Page No. 14 of 18notices dated 05-05-2012, 19-05-2012 and 29-05- 2012 and thereby himself abandoned the job, if so its effect? OPM
22. As per the workman, he was illegally terminated on 15.03.2012 out of vengeance as the workman was continuously demanding for wages and promotion. Thereafter, he made the complaint to the Labour Department. On the other hand, the case of the management is that from 01.03.2012, the workman stopped coming to the job without any intimation and three recall notices were issued to him. Despite the notices, the workman failed to report and he was deemed to be relieved from the management and termination notice dt.12.07.2012 was sent to him.
23. Ld. AR for the workman argued that no recall notice was served on the workman and the services were terminated without assigning any reason and without paying any compensation.
24. Ld. AR for the management argued that the management has proved on record not only the recall notices but also the postal receipts through which the notices were sent and the services were terminated after following the due procedure.
25. The management has proved on record the recall notices dt.05.05.2012, 19.05.2012 and 29.05.2012 as Ex.RW1/4, 5 & 6. The postal receipts are Ex.RW1/7 (colly). Through these notices, the workman was asked to give explanation LIR No.5543/2016 Chandersen Vs. M/s Intercontinental Service Agency Bureau Ltd.
Page No. 15 of 18for his absence from 01.03.2012. The management has proved on record that recall notices were issued to the workman. On the other hand, the workman has failed to disprove the assertion that he had absented from 01.03.2012 onwards and he has further failed to prove that he had made any effort to join the duties. The management has been able to prove that the workman has abandoned the services from 01.03.2012 onwards despite the three notices issued by the management. Issue no.4 is accordingly decided in favor of the management.
Issue no.5 - Whether the services of the workman have been terminated by the management illegally/ unjustifiably? OPW
26. In view of the findings of issue no.4, the management was well within its rights to terminate the services of the workman. The termination of services of the workman is accordingly legal and justifiable. The issue no.5 is accordingly decided against the workman and in favor of the management.
Issue no.6 - Whether the workman is entitled to the relief claimed? OPW AND Issue no.7 - Relief.
27. The workman has claimed the relief of reinstatement with full back-wages alongwith interest. At this stage, it becomes relevant to first see what was the demand of the workman. The workman has not issued any demand notice to the management disclosing therein any dispute. He has LIR No.5543/2016 Chandersen Vs. M/s Intercontinental Service Agency Bureau Ltd.
Page No. 16 of 18directly approached the Labour Department asking for wages as fixed by the Delhi Government. He has also asked for an employment. He has not sought any reinstatement. Vide letter dt.29.07.2013 to the Labour Department, the workman has requested to be granted half salary till his case is under investigation. Vide his letter dt.24.01.2014 to the Labour Department, he has requested to be paid Rs.40 lacs by the management so that he could start a small business.
28. It becomes clear that the workman has never made a demand for his reinstatement by the management either by way of any demand notice to the management or in his applications made to the Labour Department. Therefore, in absence of any demand by the workman, the relief of reinstatement claimed by the workman goes beyond the demands made by him.
29. Otherwise also, since the workman has abandoned the services and his services were legally and justifiably terminated by the management, the workman is not entitled either for reinstatement or for the other reliefs like back-wages or interest.
30. In view of the findings on issues as discussed herein above, I hold that the workman is not entitled to any relief.
31. The reference is accordingly answered as under :
"The workman had abandoned the services on 01.03.2012 and the termination of services of the workman was neither illegal nor unjustifiable."LIR No.5543/2016
Chandersen Vs. M/s Intercontinental Service Agency Bureau Ltd.
Page No. 17 of 1832. Copy of Award be sent to the concerned department through proper channels as per rules.
33. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Digitally signedAnnounced in the Open Court NEERAJ by NEERAJ GAUR today on 08th January, 2026 GAUR Date: 2026.01.08 15:30:17 +0530 (NEERAJ GAUR) Presiding Officer Labour Court-01 Rouse Avenue District Court New Delhi LIR No.5543/2016
Chandersen Vs. M/s Intercontinental Service Agency Bureau Ltd.
Page No. 18 of 18