Delhi District Court
Md. Rizwan vs M/S Rajya Sainik Board on 29 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ARUN KUMAR GARG
PRESIDING OFFICER : LABOUR COURT-III
ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX : NEW DELHI.
CNR No. DLCT13-005750-2022
Ref. No. F.24(66)/ID/67/ND/2022/314 Dated 06.09.2022
LIR No. 2259/2022
Md. Rizwan S/o Sh. Abdul Majid,
R/o H. No. 18/1, E Block, Gali No. 1,
Khajuri Khas, Karawal Nagar,
Delhi-110094
M. No. 9810692687
Through Sh. Ashok Sharma,
Delhi State General Karamchari Union,
D-266, In front of B-62 Group,
Industrial Area Wazirpur, Delhi-110052. ..... Workman
VERSUS
M/s. Rajya Sainik Board,
Government of NCT of Delhi,
4th Floor, Tower Block,
ISBT, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006. ..... Management
Date of Institution of the case : 15.12.2022
Date on which Award is passed : 29.05.2025
AWARD
1.By this Award, I will dispose off the reference U/s 10(1)(C) & 12(5) of Industrial Disputes Act, received from the office of Joint Labour Commissioner, District North, Labour Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi vide order Ref. No. F.24(66)/ID/67/ND/2022/314 Dated 06.09.2022 as modified vide Corrigendum No. F.24/(66)/ID/67/ND/2022/LAB/4968-71 dated 01.12.2022, whereby, the following issues have been referred to this Court for adjudication:-
LIR No. 2259/2022Md. Rizwan Vs. M/s. Rajya Sainik Board Award dated 29.05.2025 Page 1 of 28 "Whether the demand of the Workman Md. Rizwan S/o Sh. Abdul Majid for regularization of their service on the post of Sweeper and demanding for Casual Leave, Earned Leave etc. is legal and justified and if yes what relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?
Further, whether the services of workman Md. Rizwan S/o Sh. Abdul Majid have been terminated illegally and/or justifiably by the Management; and 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 15.12.2022 and pursuant thereto, present statement of claim was filed by Workman on 06.03.2023. Brief case of Workman, as per his Statement of Claim, is that he had been continuously working with Management, at the post of Sweeper, since 01.04.2016 against last drawn wages of Rs. 15,450/- per month. It is further his case that Management did not provide him with any appointment letter, attendance card, leave book, pay slip, annual and casual leaves, bonus, overtime wages, and minimum wages as per the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
3. On 18.04.2022, according to him, he had sent a notice of general demands to Management seeking the aforesaid statutory benefits, however, no reply to the aforesaid demand notice was given by Management. Workman, according to him, was thus constrained to file a claim in this regard before the Conciliation Officer. Annoyed by the act of Workman in filing of aforesaid claim before Conciliation Officer, according to Workman, on 30.04.2022, out of vengeance, Management illegally terminated his services without any notice pay, service compensation, LIR No. 2259/2022 Md. Rizwan Vs. M/s. Rajya Sainik Board Award dated 29.05.2025 Page 2 of 28 charge-sheet or inquiry, in violation of provisions of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
4. It is further alleged that he has accordingly filed another claim before Conciliation Officer seeking his reinstatement into the services of Management. No settlement, according to him, could however be arrived at during the conciliation proceedings due to lack of interest on the part of Management. It is further his case that he is unemployed since the date of termination of his services by Management and hence is entitled to his reinstatement with full back wages and other statutory benefits.
5. Notice of statement of claim was thereafter duly served upon Management, however, Management did not appear despite service and despite repeated opportunities. Management was thus proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 07.08.2023 and the matter was adjourned for ex-parte Workman's evidence. In the meantime, on an application of Management U/o 9 R 7 CPC r/w Section 5 of Limitation Act and another application U/o 8 R 1 CPC r/w Section 5 of Limitation Act, ex-parte order dated 07.08.2023 against Management was recalled and written statement filed on behalf of Management on 16.10.2023 alongwith its application U/o 8 R 1 CPC was taken on record, after condonation of delay in filing the same, vide order dated 11.12.2023.
6. Brief case of Management, as per written statement, is that the services of Workman, who was engaged by Management w.e.f. 08.04.2016 as a temporary worker on contract basis, against payment of Minimum wages notified by Govt. of NCT of LIR No. 2259/2022 Md. Rizwan Vs. M/s. Rajya Sainik Board Award dated 29.05.2025 Page 3 of 28 Delhi from time to time for unskilled category of workers initially until 31.12.2016 and whose engagement was further extended from time to time on an annual basis until 31.12.2021 and lastly upto 30.04.2022, were never terminated by Management at any point of time and rather his services were dispensed with consequent upon expiry of contract of his employment on 30.04.2022.
7. It is further the case of Management as per its written statement that during the year 2021, it became mandatory to engage the services of contractual sweeper-cum-farash/ MTS through GeM portal, however, since the Management had already got approval for engagement of present Workman until 31.12.2021, his services continued until the end of contractual period. Subsequently, according to Management, with the approval of HOD of Management, contract for engagement of Workman was extended by Management for a further period of four months w.e.f. 01.01.2022 to 30.04.2022 and a letter dated 22.12.2021 in this regard was issued to the workman who had refused to accept the same. Management has also taken a plea to the effect that Workman, being a contractual employee engaged against payment of daily wages at the rates of minimum wages notified by Govt. of NCT of Delhi from time to time for unskilled category of Workers, was not entitled to any other monetary benefits/ allowances and his wages till his last working day i.e. till 30.04.2022 were duly paid by Management to Workman. Management has thus prayed for dismissal of present claim of Workman with cost.
8. A replication/rejoinder to the written statement of LIR No. 2259/2022 Md. Rizwan Vs. M/s. Rajya Sainik Board Award dated 29.05.2025 Page 4 of 28 Management was thereafter filed by Workman on 02.01.2024, 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 denied that he was ever employed by Management as a contractual labour and alleged that he was appointed by Management as full fledged employee w.e.f. 01.04.2016 and his services were illegally terminated by Management on 30.04.2022 despite the fact that the provisions of availing the manpower services through GeM were not applicable to a regular employee.
9. Thereafter, on the basis of pleadings of parties, following issues were settled by this Court vide order dated 02.01.2024:-
(i) Whether the Workman was employed by the Management merely on contractual / temporary basis and he was not a regular employee of the Management? (OPM)
(ii) Whether the services of the Workman have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the Management? (OPW)
(iii) Whether the Workman is entitled for regularization of his services on the post of sweeper? (OPW)
(iv) Whether the Workman is entitled for casual leave, earned leave etc? (OPW)
(v) Whether the Workman is entitled to the relief of reinstatement with full back wages? (OPW)
(vi) Relief.
10. Workman has thereafter examined four witnesses in support of his case including himself. He has examined himself as WW-
1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.WW1/A LIR No. 2259/2022 Md. Rizwan Vs. M/s. Rajya Sainik Board Award dated 29.05.2025 Page 5 of 28 along with following documents:
(i) Ex.WW1/1 (colly): Copy of bank pass-book of Workman in respect of his bank account with SBI, Yamuna Vihar Branch, Delhi along with copies of statement of account of Workman
(ii) Mark-A: Copy of his complaint dated 18.04.2022.
(iii) Mark-B: Copy of postal receipt.
(iv) Mark-C: Copy of his complaint dated
16.03.2022.
(v) Mark-D: Copy of proceeding dated 20.04.2022 before Conciliation Officer.
(vi) Mark-E: Copy of demand letter.
(vii) Mark-F: Copy of statement of claim filed before Conciliation Officer.
(viii)Mark-G (colly): Copy of replies of Management dated 18.05.2022 and 06.07.2022.
11. Sh. Wazir Singh, S/o Sh. Chhatar Singh, Head Clerk of Management, was summoned and examined by Workman as WW-2 and he has produced the following documents in his evidence:
(i) Ex.WW2/1: Sanction order dated 03.05.2016 qua payment of salary to Workman for the period 08.04.2016 to 30.04.2016.
(ii) Ex.WW2/2: Letter dated 18.04.2022.
(iii) Ex.WW2/3: Letter dated 22.12.2021.
(iv) Ex.WW2/4 (colly): Copy of reply filed by Management to notice of Labour Inspector pursuant to complaint of Workman along with copy of statement of claim of Workman and notice of Labour Inspector.
(v) Ex.WW2/5(colly):Copy of letter dated 27.05.2022 of Workman along with reply dated LIR No. 2259/2022 Md. Rizwan Vs. M/s. Rajya Sainik Board Award dated 29.05.2025 Page 6 of 28 31.05.2022 of Management thereto.
(vi) Ex.WW2/6 (colly): Copy of sanction orders qua payment of wages to Workman for the period May, 2016 to March, 2022.
12. WW-2 was cross-examined by Workman with the permission of Court and was eventually discharged on 08.07.2024 after he expressed his inability to produce the remaining documents as per directions of this Court dated 19.02.2024 on the ground that he had already been retired from the services of Management w.e.f. 31.03.2024.
13. Sh. Abhishek Kumar, Data Entry Operator from the Office of Joint Labour Commissioner (North), Labour Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi was thereafter examined by Workman as WW-3 and he has produced the complete record of case no. ID/67/ND/2022 filed by Workman against Management Ex.WW3/1(colly). Besides, he has also produced the record pertaining to complaint of Workman to the concerned Minister as well as to the Labour Commissioner Ex.WW3/2 (colly).
14. Sh. Mayank, S/o Sh. Dharampal Singh, UDC from the office of Management, was thereafter examined by Workman as WW-4 and he has produced the following documents in his evidence:
(i) Ex.WW4/1 (colly): Copy of all the notings regarding extension of services of Claimant from time to time.
(ii) Ex.WW4/2: Copy of letter dated 22.12.2021 regarding engagement of Workman as MTS.
(iii) Ex.WW4/3 (colly): Copy of OM dated 12.03.2015 regarding delegation of financial powers.LIR No. 2259/2022
Md. Rizwan Vs. M/s. Rajya Sainik Board Award dated 29.05.2025 Page 7 of 28
(iv) Ex.WW4/4 (colly): Copy of OM dated 07.08.2019 regarding delegation of financial powers.
(v) Ex.WW4/5 (colly): Copy of relevant pages of GFR 2005.
(vi) Ex.WW4/6 (colly): Copy of sanction orders regarding payment of wages to Workman.
15. WW-1 and WW-4 were duly cross-examined by Ld. AR for Management, whereas, WW-2 and WW-3 were not cross- examined by Management despite opportunity. No other witness was examined on behalf of Workman despite opportunity and eventually, on a separate statement of Workman, Workman's evidence was closed vide order dated 18.11.2024.
16. Management has thereafter examined its Section Officer Sh. Sanjay Sharma as MW-1 i.e. as the sole witness in support of its case and he has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.MW1/A along with following documents:
(i) Ex.MW1/1: Copy of sanction order qua first wage payment to Workman..
(ii) Ex.MW1/2: Copy of noting qua last extension of engagement of Workman for the period 01.01.2022 to 30.04.2022.
(iii) Ex.MW1/3: Copy of letter bearing no. F.3/A/RSB/2003/344 dated 22.12.2021.
(iv) Ex.MW1/4: Copy of sanction order dated 04.05.2022 qua payment of Workman's last wages for the month of April, 2022
(v) Ex.MW1/5(colly) (Also already Ex.WW4/6 (colly)): Copies of sanction orders with effect from 08.04.2016 to 30.04.2022.
(vi) Ex.MW1/6 (colly): Copy of Noting parts from 158/N to 221/N (Para 630 to 979) dated 14.12.2015 to 28.03.2022.
LIR No. 2259/2022Md. Rizwan Vs. M/s. Rajya Sainik Board Award dated 29.05.2025 Page 8 of 28
(vii) Ex.MW1/7(colly): Copy of Office Memorandum dated 12.03.2015 and dated 07.08.2019 (No. F.8/3/2010-AC/usfa/41-44 and No. 20/08/2019/isfim/2575-2674) respectively both issued by Finance Department, GNCT of Delhi.
17. 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 the submission of Ld. AR of Management, Management's evidence was closed vide order dated 04.01.2025.
18. Final arguments were thereafter heard on behalf of both the parties. It is submitted by Ld. AR of Workman that, though, Workman had joined his duties with Management as a permanent sweeper w.e.f. 01.04.2016, however, Management has admitted his employment with Management only w.e.f. 08.04.2016. Be that as it may, according to him, admittedly even as per Management, Claimant had continuously worked with Management, without any break, until 30.04.2022 and hence, in the absence of any fixed term contract between the parties to the present claim and in the absence of production by Management of any advertisement for engagement of Sweeper, application of Workman seeking employment and appointment letter of Workman issued by Management, he should be presumed to be a regular/permanent employee of Management for over a period of six years i.e. w.e.f. 01.04.2016 until 30.4.2022, more so, when MW-1, during his cross-examination, has admitted that Workman was engaged by Management in place of a permanent Mali-cum-Farash who had retired from the services of Management.
LIR No. 2259/2022Md. Rizwan Vs. M/s. Rajya Sainik Board Award dated 29.05.2025 Page 9 of 28
19. He further submits that admittedly, none of the alleged extension letters/sanctioned orders, qua wages payable to Workman from time to time, bears the signatures of Workman and hence, he cannot be considered to be a contractual employee whose services were allegedly availed by Management on temporary basis under a fixed term contract which was allegedly renewed from time to time until 30.04.2022. He submits that the alleged letter dated 21.12.2021, qua extension of engagement of Workman as a contractual employee until 30.4.2022, has apparently been forged and fabricated by Management after filing of present claim by Workman, merely, in order to defeat his claim, in as much as, the same has neither been delivered to Workman personally, nor, was it admittedly sent to Workman through post after he had allegedly refused to accept the same.
20. He submits that Management has failed to produce any document to prove that it was unable to continue with engagement of Workman after 30.04.2022, on account of alleged change in requirement under GFR-2017 i.e. to avail the services of Sweeper-cum-Farash/MTS only through GeM portal of Govt. of India. Even otherwise, according to him, the said requirement, if any, to avail manpower services through GeM portal was not applicable to Workman, who was a permanent employee. The aforesaid plea of Management, according to him, is thus an after thought merely to defeat the claim of Workman for his regularization.
21. It is further submitted by him that Management has illegally terminated the services of Workman without any advance notice/notice pay, service compensation, inquiry or charge-sheet LIR No. 2259/2022 Md. Rizwan Vs. M/s. Rajya Sainik Board Award dated 29.05.2025 Page 10 of 28 out of vengeance after he filed a claim before Conciliation Officer seeking regularization of his services. Under the aforesaid circumstances, according to him, termination of services of Workman by Management is not only illegal, but also, unjustifiable and since Workman is unemployed with effect from the date of termination of his services by Management, he is not only entitled to his reinstatement with full back wages, but also, for his regularization with effect from the date of his first engagement by Management.
22. On the other hand, according to Ld. AR of Management, Workman has failed to produce any document to prove that he was ever recruited by Management as a permanent/regular employee towards any sanctioned post. On the contrary according to him, Management has produced all sanction orders as well as other documents to prove that his services were initially availed by Management, as an MTS on temporary basis for a fixed period until 31.12.2016, with the approval of competent authority and his engagement as MTS/Sweeper cum Farash was subsequently extended by Management from time to time on an annual basis until 31.12.2021 again with the prior approval of the Competent Authority. In the year 2021, according to him, since the services of MTS became available through GeM portal of Union of India, Management had no choice but to avail the services of MTS/ Sweeper cum Farash through GeM portal, however, since engagement of services of MTS/Sweeper cum Farash through GeM portal was supposed to take time, engagement of Workman was extended by Management until 30.04.2022.
LIR No. 2259/2022Md. Rizwan Vs. M/s. Rajya Sainik Board Award dated 29.05.2025 Page 11 of 28
23. The aforesaid decision, according to him, was duly communicated to Workman on 21.12.2021 i.e. sufficiently in advance, though, Workman refused to acknowledge the copy thereof. An endorsement to the aforesaid effect, according to him, had however been made by the concerned official of Management simultaneously which has been proved by WW-4 during his cross-examination. He submits that there is a presumption of regularity of official acts and hence, in the absence of any evidence by Workman that either the documents produced by WW-2 and WW-4, including the document dated 21.12.2021, or for that matter, endorsements by the officials of Management on the aforesaid document, were either forged or fabricated, this Court cannot discard the aforesaid documents.
24. He further submits that Management has also placed on record the document to prove that a contract for engagement of services of MTS w.e.f. 01.05.2022 was later on awarded by Management to a contractor through GeM portal. Under the aforesaid circumstances, according to him, disengagement of services of Workman, on account of non renewal of contract of his employment post 30.04.2022, does not even fall within the definition of retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 so as to attract the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. He has thus prayed for dismissal of present claim of Workman.
25. 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 this Court vide order dated 02.01.2024, are as follows:-
LIR No. 2259/2022Md. Rizwan Vs. M/s. Rajya Sainik Board Award dated 29.05.2025 Page 12 of 28 Issue no. (i): Whether the Workman was employed by the Management merely on contractual/ temporary basis and he was not a regular employee of the Management? (OPM)
26. It is the case of Management that Workman was employed by Management merely on contractual/ temporary basis and that he was not a regular employee of Management. Hence, onus to prove the aforesaid issue was upon Management. In order to discharge its onus to prove the aforesaid fact, Management has examined the sole witness i.e. its Section Officer viz. Sh. Sanjay Sharma as MW-1. Alongwith his evidence by way of affidavit, MW-1 tendered all the documents qua sanctions obtained by Management from the Competent Authority, not only, for initial engagement of Workman as an MTS till 31.12.2016, but also, for extension of his engagement beyond 31.12.2016 on an annual basis until 31.12.2021 and extension for a period of four months w.e.f. 01.01.2022 to 30.04.2022.
27. He has also produced various sanction orders qua payment of wages by Management to Workman during his engagement initially as an MTS and subsequently as a Sweeper-cum-Farash from time to time. No doubt, Management has failed to produce written contract, if any, executed between Workman and Management, pursuant to various sanction orders qua his engagement as an MTS/Sweeper-cum-Farash, nor, the signatures of Workman had ever been obtained by Management on the aforesaid sanction orders so as to constitute a written contract of employment between the parties, however, the aforesaid omission on the part of Management by itself is not sufficient to prove the engagement of Workman by Management as a regular LIR No. 2259/2022 Md. Rizwan Vs. M/s. Rajya Sainik Board Award dated 29.05.2025 Page 13 of 28 employee against a sanctioned post.
28. In this regard, it is relevant to note that Workman has neither pleaded nor proved that he was recruited by Management pursuant to any public advertisement or for that matter after following due process of recruitment meant for recruitment of an employee by a Govt. Body such as the Management. He has failed to produce his appointment letter, if any, issued by Management to prove that he was in regular employment of Management as a permanent employee against a vacant sanctioned post. In fact, in Para 3 of his statement of claim, Workman himself has categorically alleged that no appointment letter was ever issued by Management in favour of Workman, which means that he cannot be considered to be a permanent/regular employee of Management. It is further significant to note in this regard that Management is a Govt. Body and hence, could not have recruited a permanent employee against a vacant post without issuance of any appointment letter.
29. A similar deposition regarding non-issuance of any appointment letter was made by Workman in Para 3 of his affidavit Ex. WW-1/A. Contrary to the aforesaid stand of Workman in his pleadings as well as evidence, during cross- examination of WW-2, who was a witness summoned by Workman from the office of Management, Ld. AR for Workman has given a suggestion to the effect that WW-2 was deliberately not producing the application of Workman, alongwith supporting documents, seeking employment with Management and his appointment letter issued by Management, since, if produced, the same shall prove illegal termination of services of LIR No. 2259/2022 Md. Rizwan Vs. M/s. Rajya Sainik Board Award dated 29.05.2025 Page 14 of 28 Workman by Management.
30. In view of aforesaid discussion, in my considered opinion, Workman has failed to lead any documentary evidence to prove that he was a permanent/regular employee of Management. On the other hand, Management has proved various sanction orders passed by Competent Authority, not only, qua initial engagement of Workman as a full time worker/MTS w.e.f. 08.04.2016 until 31.12.2016, but also, sanction orders qua extension of his engagement on an annual basis initially as an MTS and subsequently as a Sweeper-cum-Farash until 31.12.2021.
31. A bare perusal of the last sanction order, whereby, engagement of Workman as a Sweeper-cum-Farsh was extended by Management for a further period of four months i.e. until 30.04.2022, categorically records that earlier the Management was not bound to hire the services of Sweeper-cum-Farsh/MTS from GeM portal of Govt. of India since the said services were not available on GeM, however, during the year 2021, said services were made available for procurement through GeM and hence Management would not be able to extend engagement of Workman as a Sweeper-cum-Farsh, otherwise than through GeM portal. However, considering the time, which might have been taken for completion of formalities for availing the services of Sweeper-cum-Farash through GeM portal, in order to avoid any inconvenience, engagement of Workman was extended until 30.04.2022 while categorically recording that his engagement beyond the aforesaid date would not be possible.
LIR No. 2259/2022Md. Rizwan Vs. M/s. Rajya Sainik Board Award dated 29.05.2025 Page 15 of 28
32. Management has also proved the document dated 22.12.2021 Ex.WW2/3 (which was later on endorsed as Ex.WW4/2) through WW4 Sh. Mayank, who has produced the aforesaid document upon summoning thereof by Workman in his evidence. During his cross-examination by Ld. AR of Management, WW-4 has identified the signatures of his Predecessor Sh. Ajay Saxena i.e. the then Secretary of Rajya Sainik Board, Delhi as well as endorsement and signatures at point-B of the said document to be in handwriting of Mr. Wazir Singh, Head Clerk of Management. A bare perusal of the aforesaid document shows that the same is a letter dated 22.12.2021 purportedly addressed to Workman whereby he was sought to be informed that the existing approval for his engagement as MTS on daily wage basis was up-to 31.12.2021 and Management has subsequently taken approval for his engagement for a further period of four months until 30.04.2022 and that w.e.f. 01.05.2022 services of MTS shall be taken through GeM portal.
33. As per endorsement made at point A of the aforesaid document Secretary of Management had explained the contents of aforesaid letter to Workman in Hindi and Workman had understood the same. As per endorsement at point B thereof, under the signatures of Head Clerk of Management, Workman refused to sign the aforesaid letter. It is sought to be contended by Ld. AR for Workman that MW-1 during his cross- examination has admitted that in case of refusal by Workman to accept the aforesaid letter, as a matter of practice, Management ought to have sent the same to Workman through post, however, LIR No. 2259/2022 Md. Rizwan Vs. M/s. Rajya Sainik Board Award dated 29.05.2025 Page 16 of 28 in the present case, admittedly, Management did not post the aforesaid letter to Workman. The aforesaid omission on the part of Management, according to him, indicates that the said letter is forged and fabricated by Management after filing of present claim by Workman.
34. I do not find any force in the aforesaid submission made on behalf of Workman, in as much as, Workman has failed to lead any positive evidence to prove that the said document was either forged or fabricated. In fact, the aforesaid document was first produced by WW-2, who had appeared pursuant to summons issued to him on an application of Workman for summoning of record from the office of Management. It has already been observed hereinabove that the endorsements at point A and B thereof were thereafter proved by WW-4, who had also appeared pursuant to a request of Workman for summoning of record. Despite the fact that WW-4, during his cross-examination by Ld. AR for Management, has proved the aforesaid endorsements at points A & B to be in the handwriting of Secretary as well as Head Clerk in the office of Management, Workman did not even seek any permission of the Court to cross-examine him on the aforesaid aspect. Workman has also failed to examine any witness to prove that the aforesaid document was either forged or fabricated by Management after filing of present claim by Workman.
35. On the other hand, a bare perusal of the documents relied upon by Workman, more particularly his complaint/ claim Mark C dated 16.03.2022 addressed to Labour Welfare Commissioner, Ashok Vihar, Delhi, shows that Workman himself has alleged LIR No. 2259/2022 Md. Rizwan Vs. M/s. Rajya Sainik Board Award dated 29.05.2025 Page 17 of 28 therein that Management was going to remove him w.e.f. 01.05.2022 and was insisting that if wanted to continue he should come through contractor. In para 2 of the aforesaid complaint/ claim, he has alleged that after Delhi Government increased minimum wages, instead of making him a permanent employee, Management started threatening him of his removal from the services of Management and has started making the payment of his wages on a daily basis for 25 days in a month.
36. From the aforesaid averments made by him, in his aforesaid claim/complaint., it is apparent that the Workman was aware of proposed disengagement of his services by Management w.e.f. 01.05.2022 at least prior to 16.03.2022 i.e. the date of the aforesaid complaint. Similarly, in his claim for general demands dated 20.04.2022 Mark B, workman himself has categorically alleged that the Management was not making him permanent despite the fact he had been working with Management since 01.04.2016. Even through his demand notice dated 18.04.2022, Workman has requested the Management to make him permanent. Even in his claim dated 20.04.2022 before Conciliation Officer, Workman has sought regularization of his services. From the aforesaid documents, it is apparent that the Workman had all along been aware of the fact that his services were engaged by Management temporarily on contract basis and not as a permanent/regular employee against any sanctioned post and that Management was going to discontinue his engagement w.e.f. 01.05.2022.
37. Under the aforesaid circumstances, I do not find any substance in his plea that he had been working with LIR No. 2259/2022 Md. Rizwan Vs. M/s. Rajya Sainik Board Award dated 29.05.2025 Page 18 of 28 Management as a permanent employee against a sanctioned post and his services were terminated by Management on 30.04.2022 without any reason or without any advance notice/ intimation. Moreover, there is no reason for this Court to discard various sanction orders, not only, qua initial engagement of Workman as an MTS, but also, subsequent sanction orders for continuation of his engagement as MTS/ Sweeper-Cum-Farash on an annual basis and lastly for a period of four months w.e.f. 01.01.2022, more so, in view of presumption Under Section 114 (e) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 read with Section 119 (e) of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, qua performance of official acts to be regular. No doubt, the aforesaid presumption is rebuttal in nature, however, Workman has failed to lead any evidence to rebut the aforesaid presumption. Rather, the documents relied upon by the workman himself indicate that the had all along been aware of the aforesaid sanction orders qua his engagement on a temporary basis i.e. for a period of one year at a time and the subsequent renewal of his engagement from time to time and lastly for a period of four months until 30.04.2022.
38. In fact, as has already been observed hereinabove, he was also aware of the fact that Management was going to disengage his services w.e.f. 01.05.2022 as acknowledged by him in his first claim/complaint dated 16.03.2022. In fact, a bare perusal of the documents produced by WW-2, pursuant to an application of Workman for summoning of record from the office of Management, shows that the same includes a notice of appearance dated 08.02.2022 issued by Sh. Ravinder Dahiya, Labour Inspector under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and Delhi LIR No. 2259/2022 Md. Rizwan Vs. M/s. Rajya Sainik Board Award dated 29.05.2025 Page 19 of 28 Shops and Establishments Act, 1954 pursuant to a complaint dated 16.12.2021 of the Workman against Management. As per aforesaid notice, violations, on the part of Management, alleged by Workman were illegal termination and non payment of wages etc. From the aforesaid notice of appearance also it is apparent that in December 2021 itself, Workman was aware of proposed disengagement of his services by Management since 01.05.2022.
39. In view of aforesaid discussion, in my considered opinion, Management has been able to discharge its onus to prove that Workman was not a regular employee of Management and was employed by the Management merely on contractual/ temporary basis.
40. Issue no. (i) is thus decided in favour of Management Issue no. (ii): Whether the services of the Workman have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the Management? (OPW)
41. Onus to prove Issue no. (ii) was also upon Workman. It is sought to be contended by Ld. AR for Workman that it is the admitted case of Management that Workman has continuously worked with Management until 30.04.2022, at least since 08.04.2016, without any break. Thus, according to him, services of Workman could not have been terminated by Management w.e.f. 01.05.2022 without compliance with the provisions of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Even otherwise, according to him, at the time of termination of his services by Management, claim of Workman seeking his regularization was already pending consideration before the Conciliation officer. Thus, according to him, services of Workman were terminated LIR No. 2259/2022 Md. Rizwan Vs. M/s. Rajya Sainik Board Award dated 29.05.2025 Page 20 of 28 by Management w.e.f. 01.05.2022 not only illegally but also unjustifiably.
42. On the other hand, Ld. AR for Management submits that since the initial appointment of Workman was on temporary basis for a fixed term i.e. until 31.12.20216, despite subsequent extensions by Management from time to time and lastly for a period of four months until 30.04.2022, disengagement of his services w.e.f. 01.05.2022 does not fall within the definition of retrenchment since the same was on account of non-renewal of his contract of employment after expiry of period of his earlier engagement on 30.04.2022. Under the aforesaid circumstances, according to him, Management was not required to comply with the provisions of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act 1947. He submits that disengagement of services of Workman by Management w.e.f. 01.05.2022 may also not be considered unjustified since the same was as per the approved government Policy under GFR-2017 and his continuous engagement after 30.04.2022 would have been in violation of the government orders.
43. So far as the plea of Workman regarding termination of his services by Management, during pendency of conciliation proceedings initiated pursuant to his claim for regularization of services, is concerned, it is submitted by him that the aforesaid claim was preferred by Workman with a malafide intent after he was duly informed by Management that Management shall not be able to continue with his engagement w.e.f 01.05.2022 due to availability of services of MTS/ Sweeper cum Farash on GeM portal of Govt. of India, in terms of GFR-2017.
LIR No. 2259/2022Md. Rizwan Vs. M/s. Rajya Sainik Board Award dated 29.05.2025 Page 21 of 28
44. I find force in the submission made on behalf of Management. It has already been observed hereinabove that Management has been able to establish the engagement of Workman initially as an MTS w.e.f. 08.04.2016 until 31.12.2016 and subsequent extension of his engagement as MTS/ Sweeper- cum-Farash on an annual basis until 31.12.2021. Management has also been able to establish last extension of his engagement for a period of 4 months w.e.f. 01.01.2022. The Court can even take judicial notice of the fact that as per GFR 2017, all goods or services available on GeM Portal of Govt of India can only be procured by any government department/board/Authority through GeM Portal.
45. On the basis of record maintained by Management. MW-1 has categorically deposed that the services of MTS/ Sweeper- cum-Farash were not available on GeM portal of Govt. of India until the year 2021, however, during the year 2021 the said services were also made available on GeM portal. Since the date of availability of aforesaid services through GeM portal, in my considered opinion, Management was bound to avail the same only through GeM portal. However, the Court finds force in the explanation offered by Management for further extension of engagement of Workman for a period of four months beyond 31.12.2021 since procurement of services of MTS/ Sweeper- cum-Farash through GeM portal was certainly going to take some time. In fact, Management has proved that it obtained requisite approval in this regard from the Competent Authority.
46. The only plea of Workman, to counter the aforesaid submission of Ld. AR of Management, is that the provisions of LIR No. 2259/2022 Md. Rizwan Vs. M/s. Rajya Sainik Board Award dated 29.05.2025 Page 22 of 28 GFR-2017 qua procurement of manpower services through GeM portal are not applicable to Workman since he was employed by Management as a permanent employee against a vacant sanctioned post. It has already been observed hereinabove that Workman has failed to prove his recruitment by Management to be in consonance with the relevant rules of Management, which is a Government Body, for recruitment of its employees on permanent basis against a sanctioned post.
47. No doubt, various notings tendered by Management in its evidence find reference qua vacancy of different permanent posts such as the post of Mali and Chowkidar from time to time, however, none of the aforesaid notings suggest that the engagement of Workman by Management was towards either of the aforesaid vacant sanctioned posts. Rather, reference to the vacancy of the aforesaid posts was merely to justify the continuation of engagement of Workman besides other similar workers until the aforesaid posts are filled up by the Management through a regular recruitment process.
48. It is sought to be submitted by Ld. AR of Workman that MW-1, during his cross-examination, has admitted that prior to recruitment of Claimant, there was a permanent employee of Management who was working as Mali-cum-Farash and after his retirement, Management recruited the Claimant on contractual basis till the time another permanent employee in place of the retired employee could be recruited by Management. A bare perusal of evidence of MW-1 shows that he has categorically admitted therein that he did not have any personal knowledge of the facts of the case and in his evidence by way of affidavit, he LIR No. 2259/2022 Md. Rizwan Vs. M/s. Rajya Sainik Board Award dated 29.05.2025 Page 23 of 28 had deposed on the basis of records maintained by Management. The record maintained by Management in this regard has also been tendered by him in his evidence and a bare perusal of the aforesaid record reflects that the Workman was never engaged by the Management against any permanent post, much less, by following the due process of recruitment as per rules and the reference, if any, to the retirement of any permanent employee in various notings was merely made to justify the continuation of engagement of Workman as a temporary employee from time to time, besides, for engagement of another similar employee on temporary basis.
49. In any case, even the aforesaid admission of MW-1, pointed out by Ld. AR of Workman, does not support the case of Workman, in as much as, it has been categorically deposed by him that the claimant was recruited by Management on contractual basis till recruitment of a permanent employee in place of retired employee, which is contrary to the claim of Workman that he was engaged by Management as a permanent employee.
50. As has already been observed hereinabove, though, Management has failed to produce any written contract of employment executed between the parties to prove that services of Workman were engaged by Management on a fixed term contract basis and the said contract was renewed from time to time until 30.04.2022, however, Management has been able to prove various sanction orders qua engagement of Workman as a temporary employee for a fixed term initially until 31.12.2016, which term was subsequently extended from time to time until LIR No. 2259/2022 Md. Rizwan Vs. M/s. Rajya Sainik Board Award dated 29.05.2025 Page 24 of 28 31.12.2021 on an annual basis and lastly for a period of four months until 30.4.2022.
51. Similarly, though, signatures of Workman were not obtained by Management on any of the aforesaid sanction orders, however, as has already been observed hereinabove, Workman had all along been made aware of his engagement by Management on temporary basis initially for a fixed term until 31.12.2016 and lastly until 30.04.2022. As per the provisions of Section 2(oo) of Industrial disputes Act 1947 retrenchment of a workman does not include termination of his services as a result of non renewal of contract of employment between the employer and Workman, upon its expiry.
52. In the case in hand, termination of services of Workman, if any, is certainly as a result of non renewal of aforesaid contract of employment after 30.04.2022 and hence, the same does not fall within the definition of retrenchment of Workman U/s 2 (oo) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Consequently Management was not required to comply with the provisions of Section 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which provides for conditions precedent to retrenchment of a Workman by an employer. It is not even the case of Workman that his termination by Management was by way of punishment inflicted pursuant to a disciplinary action.
53. Workman has also tried to take a plea that his termination by Management w.e.f. 01.05.2022 is illegal since Management has terminated him out of vengeance during pendency of his claim, seeking his regularization into the services of LIR No. 2259/2022 Md. Rizwan Vs. M/s. Rajya Sainik Board Award dated 29.05.2025 Page 25 of 28 Management, before Conciliation Officer. I do not find any force in the aforesaid submission of Workman, in as much as, it has already been observed hereinabove that even prior to filing of his claim for regularization, Workman was fully aware of the fact that Management, being bound by GFR 2017, was going to disengage his services after expiry of his last contract of employment until 30.04.2022 consequent upon availability of services of MTS/ Sweeper-cum-Farash on GeM portal since the year 2021.
54. No doubt, Management has failed to produce any document to prove the exact date since when the aforesaid services were made available on GeM portal of Govt., however, the very fact that as per the record produced by WW-4, a contract for hiring of MTS/ Sweeper-cum-Farash has been awarded by Management through GeM portal to an agency namely M/s Crown Security Services by way of a letter dated 26.04.2022, indicates that as on the date of dis-engagement of services of Workman on account of non renewal of his contract, services of MTS/ Sweeper-cum- Farash were certainly available on GeM. Since, the Management has dis-engaged the services of Workman so as to ensure compliance with the provisions of GFR 2017, in my considered opinion, this Court cannot hold the termination of services of Workman, if any, w.e.f. 01.05.2022 as unjustifiable.
55. Issue no. (ii) is thus decided against the Workman.
Issue no. (iii): Whether the Workman is entitled for regularization of his services on the post of sweeper? (OPW)
56. The aforesaid issue was settled by this Court in terms of LIR No. 2259/2022 Md. Rizwan Vs. M/s. Rajya Sainik Board Award dated 29.05.2025 Page 26 of 28 reference dated 06.09.2022. A perusal of statement of claim filed by Workman, pursuant to aforesaid reference, however, reflects that Workman therein has merely prayed for his reinstatement into the job with back wages and other dues, while, alleging illegal termination of his services by Management on 30.04.2022, without any notice pay/ service compensation, charge-sheet or inquiry. No prayer for regularization of his services has even been made by Workman in his statement of claim.
57. In fact, no evidence has even been led by Workman to prove his entitlement for regularization at the post of Sweeper. It is not even his case that his services were engaged by Management while following the recruitment process as per rules. It has been authoritatively held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of cases that regularization of services of Workman, hired on daily wage/ contract basis without following due process of recruitment against a sanctioned vacant post, would amount to back door entry so as to deprive the other eligible candidates. Under the aforesaid circumstances, in my considered opinion, Workman is not entitled for regularization of his services on the post of Sweeper.
58. Issue no. (iii) is thus decided against Workman.
Issue no. (iv): Whether the Workman is entitled for casual leave, earned leave etc? (OPW)
59. Onus to prove the aforesaid issue was also upon Workman, however, Workman has failed to lead any evidence in support of his aforesaid plea.
LIR No. 2259/2022Md. Rizwan Vs. M/s. Rajya Sainik Board Award dated 29.05.2025 Page 27 of 28
60. Issue no. (iv) is thus also decided against Workman.
Issue no. (v): Whether the Workman is entitled to the relief of reinstatement with full back wages? (OPW)
61. It has already been observed hereinabove that Workman has failed to prove illegal termination of his services by Management and hence, there is no question of his entitlement to the relief of reinstatement with or without back wages.
62. Issue no. (v) is thus also decided against workman.
Issue no. (vi): Relief.
63. In view of my findings on issues no. (i) to (v) hereinabove, in my considered opinion, Workman is not entitled to any relief.
64. Present claim filed by Workman pursuant to reference dated 06.09.2022, as modified vide Corrigendum Dated 01.12.2022, is hereby dismissed and reference is answered in negative in the following terms:
"The Claimant Md. Rizwan S/o Sh. Abdul Majid has failed to prove illegal termination of his services by Management and hence he is not entitled to any relief including his regularization etc."
65. Ordered accordingly.
66. Requisite number of copies of this award be sent to the competent authority for publication as per rules.
th ARUN Digitally by ARUN signed Announced in the open Court on this 29 day of May, 2025. This award consists of 28 number of signed pages. KUMAR KUMAR Date:
GARG GARG 2025.05.29 15:54:19 +05'30' (ARUN KUMAR GARG) Presiding Officer Labour Court-III Rouse Avenue Court, New Delhi LIR No. 2259/2022 Md. Rizwan Vs. M/s. Rajya Sainik Board Award dated 29.05.2025 Page 28 of 28