Delhi District Court
Govind Ram vs G B Pant Hospital Other on 20 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. 3037/2016
(Old no.74/2015)
CNR No. DLCT130030892015
In the matter of:
(1) Sh. Govind Ram
S/o Sh. Asha Ram
R/o Village Rakhota P.O. Aharwan
Teh. Palwal, Distt. Palwal, Haryana-121102
Mobile No. not provided.
Through Sachiv Sh. Munna Lal Pandey
Mob. No.9811757692
Bhartiya Shramik Union (Regd.)
A-559, Khyala, Vishnu Garden,
near SBI, New Delhi-110018.
.....Claimant/Workman
Details of an immediate family member of claimant/workman:
Not Provided.
Details of Authorized Representative of claimant/workman :
Name: Mr. M L Pandey and Ms. Indu Pandey
Mobile No.: 8700996065
Email ID : [email protected]
(2) Sh. Roshan Lal
S/o Sh. Shyam Lal
(No Dispute Award qua him already passed on 23.07.2015)
VERSUS
(1) M/s G B Pant Hospital
Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002.
LIR No.3037/2016 (old No.74/15)
Govind Ram Vs. G B Pant Hospital & Ors.
Page No. 1 of 14
(2) M/s Security Services
Complex Market, 3rd Floor, Plot No.6,
Dwarka, Sector-10, New Delhi-110075.
.....Managements
Date of Receipt of Reference : 07.04.2015
Date of Award : 20.01.2026
AWARD
1. A consolidated 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(52)/15/Lab/CD/321 dated 23.03.2015 under
Section 10(1)(c) and 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 regarding an industrial dispute between two
workman namely Sh. Govind Ram & Sh. Roshan Lal and
the managements of M/s G B Pant Hospital (hereinafter
referred to as 'management no.1/M-1') and M/s Security
Services (hereinafter referred to as 'management no.2
/M-2') with the following terms of reference:
"Whether the termination of services of, Sh. Govind
Ram S/o Sh. Asha Ram and Sh. Roshan Lal S/o
Shyam Lal, By the management is illegal and or
and /or unjustified; and if yes, to what relief they are
entitled and what directions are necessary in this
respect?"
2. After receipt of reference, notice was issued to both the
workman but despite having been granted last and final
opportunity, the workmen failed to file any statement of
claim whereafter, vide order dt.23.07.2015, a No Dispute
Award was passed.
LIR No.3037/2016 (old No.74/15)
Govind Ram Vs. G B Pant Hospital & Ors.
Page No. 2 of 14
3. Thereafter, only one workman namely Govind Ram
(hereinafter referred to as 'workman') filed an application
against the order dt.23.07.2015 whereafter, vide order
dt.28.08.2015, the application of the workman was allowed
and it had been mentioned that the second workman
Roshan Lal had settled the case with the management.
Further, workman Govind Ram filed his statement of claim
on the same day.
Facts as per statement of claim
4. Briefly, the management no.1 used to take work from the claimant/workman through management no.2 and in this way, he was working with the managements as Security Guard w.e.f. 20.12.2011 with his last drawn salary being Rs.8,850/- per month without any complaint or charges against him.
5. It is further averred that the managements did not provide legal facilities like appointment letter, attendance card, leave book, payslip, leave encashment, bonus, minimum wages, etc. to the workman. When he orally demanded the same, the management got annoyed and started harassing him and compelled him to leave the job.
6. It is further averred that the workman alongwith his co-
workmen filed a claim before the Labour Office whereafter, managements pressurized the workman to withdraw his case and leave the union but the workman did not agree and the management started harassing him even more. It is further averred that the workman was on LIR No.3037/2016 (old No.74/15) Govind Ram Vs. G B Pant Hospital & Ors.
Page No. 3 of 14leave and on 05.01.2013, when he reported for duties, the managements did not allow him to join the duty. When the workman informed the management no.1 about the same, he was told that it was between him and management no.2.
7. It is further averred that the managements did not clear the dues of the workman towards leave, bonus, ESI, PF, arrear towards minimum wages, etc. It is further averred that the termination of services of the workman, without notice pay, service compensation, chargesheet or enquiry, is illegal unjustified and in violation of the provisions of Section 25 of the ID Act.
8. It is further averred that the workman had also filed complaint dt. 21.01.2013 before the Labour Office regarding his illegal termination but despite that the managements did not reinstate the workman nor cleared his dues. Being aggrieved, the workman filed his statement of claim before Labour Conciliation Office, Labour Office, Pusa Road, New Delhi but the managements were not interested to settle the matter. It has also been asserted that the claimant/ workman was unemployed since termination despite his efforts and he is dependent upon his relatives for his basic needs. The workman was illegally terminated by the managements despite the fact that he worked continuously for more than 240 days every year hence, the present claim seeking reinstatement in service with full back wages with all consequential benefits.
LIR No.3037/2016 (old No.74/15) Govind Ram Vs. G B Pant Hospital & Ors.
Page No. 4 of 14 Facts as per reply of Management No. 19. In its reply, the management no. 1 has averred that they had awarded a contract to a security agency namely M/s Tabs Security Services with address F-308, 3 rd Floor, Aditya Complex III, MLU (Sector-10 Market) through Directorate General of Resettlement, Ministry of Defence w.e.f 13.10.2011 till 31.07.2013. It is further averred that one Govind Ram was inducted in security agency in January, 2012 and his pay bills were cleared by the agency with last bill on 31.12.2012. On merits, the management had denied the averments put forth in the statement of claim and dismissal of the claim has been prayed for.
Facts as per written statement filed by management no. 2
10. In its written statement, the management no. 2 stated that the claim of the workman is illegal and liable to be rejected as the services of the claimant were not terminated by the management rather, it was him who had left the company on his own will on 01.01.2013 after receiving all his dues and completing full and final formalities for leaving the company.
11. It is further averred that the claimant was discreetly working concurrently for another company M/s Fearless Metro Hawks Security Pvt. Ltd. while he was working with the management no.2. The workman was covered under EPFO account no.DSNHPO937509000000551 for working with M/s Fearless Metro Hawks Security Pvt. Ltd. The workman had grossly violated the terms of service LIR No.3037/2016 (old No.74/15) Govind Ram Vs. G B Pant Hospital & Ors.
Page No. 5 of 14conditions enunciated in his appointment letter wherein he was debarred from taking any other job whilst working for the answering respondent.
12. It is further averred that the workman was unable to discharge his duties efficiently due to heavy fatigue caused by concurrently working with two companies and to make himself available at both places, the workman started manipulating his duties and coerce the Supervisor to adjust his duties to his convenience. When management no.2 came to know about the same, the workman was given an option by the management no.2 to work for either of the two companies viz. management no.2 i.e. M/s Tabs Security Services or M/s Fearless Metro Hawks Securrity Pvt. Ltd. The workman opted to work with M/s Fearless Metro Hawks Security Pvt. Ltd and he requested to clear all his legal dues which were subsequently cleared by the management no.2 and the workman signed full and final document. It is further averred that the claim of the workman is not maintainable as he has concealed material facts. On merits, the management no.2 has denied all the averments put forth in the statement of claim and dismissal of the claim has been prayed for.
Facts as per replication
13. In the replication to the replies of the managements, the claimant/workman denied all the preliminary objections as raised and reiterated the contents of its statement of claim.
LIR No.3037/2016 (old No.74/15) Govind Ram Vs. G B Pant Hospital & Ors.
Page No. 6 of 14Issues
14. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 18.07.2017:
(i) Whether the workman was employed by some outsource agency? OPM-1
(ii) Whether the workman has left the services of the Management no.2 of its own on 01.01.2013 after receiving his full and final payment from it? OPM-2
(iii) As per terms of reference.
(iv) Relief.
Workman Evidence
15. To prove his case, the claimant/ workman has examined himself as WW1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit i.e. Ex.WW1/A on similar lines as his statement of claim. He also relied upon the following documents:
Srl. Description of documents Exhibits/ No. Marks
1. Identity card of TABS Security Ex.WW1/1 Services
2. Copy of application dated Ex.WW1/2 21.01.2013 filed before Conciliation Officer
3. Copy of demand notice dated Ex.WW1/3 12.01.2013
4. Statement of EPFO Mark-A
5. Payment receipt Mark-B
16. WW1 claimant/ workman was duly cross-examined on behalf of the managements. During cross-examination of LIR No.3037/2016 (old No.74/15) Govind Ram Vs. G B Pant Hospital & Ors.
Page No. 7 of 14WW-1, certain documents were relied upon by the managements viz. application form alongwith rules i.e. Ex.WW1/M-2/1, appointment letter i.e. Ex.WW1/M2/2, Ex.WW1/M2/3, salary sheet of December 2012 i.e. Ex.WW1/M2/4, salary sheet of December 2011 i.e. Ex.WW1/M2/5 and Ex.WW1/M2/6.
Management Evidence
17. In its evidence, the management no.2 examined only one witness i.e. M2W1 Mr. Chandra Shamsher Singh Deopa, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.M2W1/A and also relied upon the following documents:-
Srl. Description of documents Exhibits/ No. Marks (1) Copy of sponsorship for security and Ex.M2W1/1 allied services dated 26.12.2010 (2) Copy of circular of minimum wages Mark-A act (3) Copies of PF statement Mark-B (4) Copy of statement of account of Mark-C EPFO (5) Copy of return of contribution of Mark-D ESIC (6) Copy of establishment information Mark-E search regarding workman was working with Fearless Metro Hawks Pvt. Ltd.
(7) Letter dated 11.05.2015 regarding Ex.M2W1/2 temporary closure of business activity - EPF Code :
DLCPM0038460000 LIR No.3037/2016 (old No.74/15) Govind Ram Vs. G B Pant Hospital & Ors.Page No. 8 of 14
(8) Letter dated 11.05.2015 regarding Ex.M2W1/3 temporary closure of business activity - ESI Code :
20001038020001001 (9) Letter dated 11.05.2015 regarding Ex.M2W1/4 temporary closure of business activity - Reg.
No.14/287/2010/HP-2/PSC SERIAL NO. 0151
18. The M2W1 was duly cross-examined on behalf of the workman and the documents mentioned at serial no.7, 8 and 9 were marked during his cross-examination.
19. The management no.1 did not examine any witness and ME on behalf of management no.1 as well as management no.2 was closed vide order dt.05.07.2023.
Final Arguments
20. Final arguments were then advanced by the Ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties which have been carefully considered along with the evidence on record. Written arguments filed by the workman and management no.2 also considered. The issue wise findings are as under:
Issue no.1 - Whether the workman was employed by some outsource agency? OPM-1
21. It is argued by ARM1 that the workman has admitted in his cross-examination that he had been employed by Management no.2 and had filed the application form Ex.WW1/M2/1. His appointment letter Ex.WW1/M2/2 was also admittedly issued by management no.2. The case LIR No.3037/2016 (old No.74/15) Govind Ram Vs. G B Pant Hospital & Ors.
Page No. 9 of 14of even management no.2 is that the workman was employed by it and only deputed with management no.1 under the contract with management no.1 for providing security to the hospital. It is argued that in view of the unambiguous admission of the workman as well as the management no.2, the management no.1 has discharged the burden of proving the issue no.1.
22. Ld. AR for the workman conceded that the workman was an employee of the management no.2 and not of management no.1.
23. Ld. AR for management no.2 also conceded that the employer-employee relationship of the workman was with management no.2 and not with management no.1.
24. The facts proved on record clearly established that the workman was an employee of management no.2 and not of management no.1. The issue no.1 is accordingly decided in favor of management no.1.
Issue no.2 - Whether the workman has left the services of the Management no.2 of its own on 01.01.2013 after receiving his full and final payment from it? OPM-2
25. It is argued on behalf of management no.2 that the workman has admitted in his cross-examination his application form for employment with management no.2 which is Ex.WW1/M2/1. Workman has further admitted the appointment letter Ex.WW1/M2/2. As per condition no.11 of this appointment letter, the workman was forbidden from engaging in another employment or LIR No.3037/2016 (old No.74/15) Govind Ram Vs. G B Pant Hospital & Ors.
Page No. 10 of 14business without written permission of the management no.2. It is submitted that the workman has admitted in his cross-examination that he was working with M/s Fearless Metro Hawks Security Pvt. Ltd. since prior to joining the management no.2 on 21.12.2011 and he has further admitted that he had worked with this firm till 2013. It is argued that the workman was confronted with a document Mark A during his cross-examination which is the statement of account of EPFO in respect of the workman for the period 08.12.2011 till 01.06.2013. The PF contribution was being made by M/s Fearless Metro Hawks Security Pvt. Ltd. It corroborates the admission of the workman made in his cross-examination that he had worked with M/s Fearless Metro Hawks Security Pvt. Ltd. approximately for 2 years. He has further admitted that he remained continuously employed with M/s Fearless Metro Hawks Security Pvt. Ltd. after his dismissal from management no.2. It is argued that on discovering that the workman was having a dual employment, management no.2 gave him an option to work with either of the firms and the workman chose to continue his employment with M/s Fearless Metro Hawks Security Pvt. Ltd. Accordingly, all the dues upto 31.12.2012 were paid to the workman through a full and final settlement dt.05.01.2013 which is Ex.WW1/M2/3. It is argued that despite being caught by management no.2 of having dual employment and despite taking the full and final settlement amount, the workman made a false claim against the managements. It is argued LIR No.3037/2016 (old No.74/15) Govind Ram Vs. G B Pant Hospital & Ors.
Page No. 11 of 14that the management no.2 has duly proved that the workman has left the services on his own on 01.01.2013 after receiving full and final payment.
26. On behalf of the workman, it is argued that the management no.2 has failed to prove that the workman was employed with any other firm and the workman is entitled to the reliefs claimed by him.
27. I have considered the submissions and gone through the record. In his cross-examination, the workman has admitted that he was working with M/s Fearless Metro Hawks Security Pvt. Ltd. for 2 years. He has further admitted that he came to know in the year 2013 about the PF facility being provided to him by M/s Fearless Metro Hawks Security Pvt. Ltd. He stated that he had no knowledge about the document Mark A regarding the PF contribution which mentions the date of joining as 08.12.2011 and date of exit as 01.06.2013. He admitted that he was dismissed first from management no.2 and he was continuing his job with M/s Fearless Metro Hawks Security Pvt. Ltd. These admissions of the workman clearly show that while in the employment of management no.2, the workman was simultaneously employed with M/s Fearless Metro Hawks Security Pvt. Ltd. This case of management no.2 could not be refuted by the workman during the cross-examination of M2W1 who maintained that it was the workman who opted to continue his employment with M/s Fearless Metro Hawks Security Pvt. Ltd. and it was him who had asked for full and final LIR No.3037/2016 (old No.74/15) Govind Ram Vs. G B Pant Hospital & Ors.
Page No. 12 of 14settlement which was paid by management no.2. The management no.2 has proved the full and final settlement as Ex.WW1/M2/3 which could not be disproved by the workman. The facts and circumstances proved on record clearly establish that the workman was having dual employment. The management no.2 had proved the appointment letter on record which clearly stipulates that the workman could not engage himself in any other employment or business. On the scale of preponderance of probabilities, it is proved that the workman, on getting discovered regarding his dual employment, opted to take relieving from the services of management no.2 after obtaining full and final settlement. Therefore, no question of illegal termination of the workman arises. Issue no.2 is accordingly decided in favor of the management no.2 and against the workman.
Issue no.3 - As per terms of reference.
AND Issue no.4 - Relief.
28. In view of findings of issue no.1 and 2, I hold that the services of the workman were not terminated much less illegally or unjustifiably and the workman is not entitled to any relief.
29. The reference qua workman Govind Ram is accordingly answered as under :
"The workman Govind Ram had left the services of management no.2 after entering into full and final settlement dt. 05.01.2013 and the termination of services of the workman was neither illegal nor unjustifiable."
LIR No.3037/2016 (old No.74/15) Govind Ram Vs. G B Pant Hospital & Ors.
Page No. 13 of 1430. Copy of Award be sent to the concerned department through proper channels as per rules.
31. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Digitally signed by Announced in the Open Court NEERAJ NEERAJ GAUR Date:
today on 20th January, 2026 GAUR 2026.01.20 16:25:33 +0530 (NEERAJ GAUR) Presiding Officer Labour Court-01 Rouse Avenue District Court New Delhi LIR No.3037/2016 (old No.74/15) Govind Ram Vs. G B Pant Hospital & Ors.Page No. 14 of 14