Delhi District Court
Pranesh Jha vs M/S Wat Consulting Services Pvt Ltd on 24 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS RITU SINGH, DISTRICT JUDGE &
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE PRESIDING OFFICER
LABOUR COURT - IV, ROUSE AVENUE COURTS
COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
LIR No. 108/2024
DLCT DLCT13-000400-2024
Sh. Pranesh Jha S/o Sh. Baidya Nath Jha
R/o H. No. C-737, Gali No. 6, Agar Nagar,
Prem Nagar, Kirari Suleman Nagar, North
West Delhi 110086
.........Workman
vs.
M/s Wat Consulting Services Pvt Ltd.
Room No. 906, 9th Floor, Kanchejunga Building-18,
New Delhi 110001
..........Managements
Date of Institution : 20.01.2024
Date of Argument : 19.02.2026
Date of Award : 24.02.2026
Decision : Claim allowed.
AWARD
01. Vide this Award, this Court shall decide the Industrial
Dispute which was referred by Deputy Labour Commissioner,
New Delhi District, Employment Exchange Building, Pusa
Campus, New Delhi 110012 on a complaint filed by the
workman against the Managements, vide reference dated
29.11.2023u/s 10(1)(c) and 12 (5) of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, wherein the following reference was to be answered :-
"Whether Sh. Pranesh Jha S/o Sh. Baidya Nath Jha, is a worker as defined u/s 2(s) of the ID Act 1947, if yes, his services have been terminated illegally and /or unjustifiably LIR No. 108/2024 Pranesh Jha vs M/s Wat Consulting Services Pvt Ltd.Page No. 1 /22
by the management and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in the respect?"
THE CLAIM OF THE WORKMAN
02. Notice of reference was issued to the workman and workman has appeared before the Court and has filed his statement of claim. The workman has asserted in his statement of claim that he had been in continuous employment of management since 19.08.2019 as Senior System Analyst and his last drawn monthly salary was Rs. 64,680/-. He has further claimed in his statement of claim that he has been performing his duty sincerely, honestly, diligently, without any complaint by his superiors.
03. The workman has further claimed in his statement of claim that at time of his appointment, the management had obtained his signatures on blank papers, blank vouchers and blank final settlement letter and blank appointment letter, however, management had not supplied the copy these documents to him.
04. The workman has further alleged in his statement of claim that management never used to comply with the rules and regulations of the Labour Laws it never did not provided any statutory benefits and facilities like attendance card, leave book, identity card, overtime, bonus, minimum wages, etc to its employees and that workman was not even issued any appointment letter by the management.
LIR No. 108/2024 Pranesh Jha vs M/s Wat Consulting Services Pvt Ltd.
Page No. 2 /2205. The workman has alleged that when he continued to make repeated demands from management for the aforesaid statutory benefits and facilities, the management was annoyed with him and had out of vengeance illegally and unjustified terminated him on 24.02.2023, after obtaining his signatures on blank papers and vouchers and final settlement /agreement. He has alleged that his termination by the management is violative of section section 25 F of ID Act as management has neither paid any compensation /dues nor considered his seniority neither furnished seniority list and he has thus challenged his termination as illegal and unjustified.
06. The workman has claimed that he had sent demand notice dated 25.03.2023 through his Union to the management via speed post challenging his illegal termination and seeking his reinstatement, back wages, overtime and other dues from the management but management has neither paid any replied to it, nor reinstated him nor paid any dues.
07. It has been alleged that the workman had represented his case before the Conciliation Officer but due to non-corporative attitude of management, Conciliation Officer had referred this case for adjudication to the Court.
08. Workman has claimed that since the date of his illegal termination on 24.02.2023, he had been unemployed despite his best efforts to find alternate employment and that he is ready and willing to join his job in the management.
09. By way of present petition, the workman has prayed that his termination dated 24.02.2023 be declared as illegal and unjustified and has prayed that an award be passed in his favour LIR No. 108/2024 Pranesh Jha vs M/s Wat Consulting Services Pvt Ltd.
Page No. 3 /22directing the management to reinstate him with full back wages and consequential benefits along with interest @ 18 % per annum.
VERSION OF MANAGEMENT IN ITS REPLY
10. Notice of the statement of claim of the workman was issued to management and pursuant to the service of the notice, the management had entered appearance before the Court and filed its written statement.
11. In its written statement, management has admitted that workman had been working in management (M/s Wat Consulting Services Pvt Ltd.) as Senior System Analyst/Senior Software Engineer from 19.08.2019 to 24.02.2023. Management has denied that it had terminated the workman and instead, alleged that the workman had voluntarily left/ resigned from his services on 24.02.2023 after obtaining clearance from full and final settlement dated 07.03.2023 from the management. Management has claimed that no unpaid dues, or any account whatsoever is pending towards workman.
12. Management has further taken preliminary objection in its written statement that workman is not covered under the purview of 'workman' as defined in section 2(s) of ID Act as he used to work as Senior System Analyst/Senior Software Engineer and used to draw monthly salary of Rs. 64,680/-.
13. Management has prayed that the present claim of the workman be dismissed as the claim is wholly misconceived, vexatious, misleading, misrepresented, unsustainable, false and LIR No. 108/2024 Pranesh Jha vs M/s Wat Consulting Services Pvt Ltd.
Page No. 4 /22frivolous and nothing but a flagrant abuse of the process of law.
14. Management has denied all the remaining allegations of the workman levelled against the management in statement of claim of the workman.
15. The workman has filed replication to the written statement of the management, wherein he has reiterated his version as mentioned in his statement of claim and denied the allegations levelled by the management.
16. After completion of the pleadings of the parties as well as in terms of reference, vide order dated 19.11.2024 following issue were framed:-
(1) Whether the claimant is covered within the definition of 'workman' as defined u/s 2(s) of ID Act? OPW (2) Whether the claimant had voluntarily resigned from the services of the management after full and final settlement with the management? OPM (3) Whether the services of claimant have been terminated illegally and or unjustifiably by the management? OPW.
(4) Whether claimant is entitled to any relief and consequential benefits, if any and what directions are necessary in this respect? OPW EVIDENCE OF WORKMAN
17. In order to prove the case, the workman appeared as witness WW1 and filed his evidence affidavit Ex. WW-1/A wherein he has reiterated the contents of statement of claim on solemn affirmation. Besides this, he had also placed on record the following documents:-
LIR No. 108/2024 Pranesh Jha vs M/s Wat Consulting Services Pvt Ltd.Page No. 5 /22
(i) Copy of appraisal letter dated 30.08.2022 Ex. WW1/1
(ii) Copy of grant letter dated 21.10.2022 Ex. WW1/2
(iii) Copy of pay slips for period from Nov 2022 to Jan 2023 Ex. WW1/3 (colly)
(vi) Copy of experiance certificate dated 07.03.2023 Ex. WW1/4
(v) Copy of aadhar card Ex. WW1/5.
(vi) Demand notice dated 25.03.2023 alongwith speed psot receipts dated 28.03.2023 Ex. WW1/6 (Colly)
(vii) Copy of reference order Ex. WW1/7.
18. Despite repeated and opportunities given to the management, the management had failed to cross-examine the workman and therefore, this Court vide its order dated 27.09.2025, had closed right of the management to cross- examine the workman had closed and matter was thereafter listed for management's evidence. However, subsequently, management had moved application u/s 151 CPC for setting aside order 27.09.2025 as well as for permission to cross- examination of the workman, which was allowed and workman was cross-examined by AR of the management.
19. Thereafter, matter was listed for management evidence.
20. Despite opportunity, management had opted not to lead any defence evidence in its defence as submitted by AR of management on 19.12.2025 and on request of AR of the management, management's evidence was closed.
21. Thereafter, matter was listed for final arguments. Written submissions were filed on behalf of both the parties. Same has been perused. This Court has heard the detailed final arguments addressed by AR for the workman and AR of the management and thoroughly perused the record and documents on record.
LIR No. 108/2024 Pranesh Jha vs M/s Wat Consulting Services Pvt Ltd.
Page No. 6 /2222. Issue-wise findings of this Court are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1 Whether the claimant is covered within the definition of 'workman' as defined u/s 2(s) of ID Act? OPW
23. The onus to prove the issue no. 1 was on the workman.
24. It is the claim of the workman that he had been in continuous employment of management since 19.08.2019 as Senior System Analyst and his last drawn monthly salary was Rs. 64,680/- and that he was terminated by the management on 24.02.2023.
25. On the other hand, management has taken preliminary objection in its written statement that workman is not covered within the statutory definition of 'workman' as defined in section 2(s) of ID Act as per section 2(s)(iii) and (iv) of the ID Act.
26. It has been settled position of law as explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in S. K. Maini vs Carona Sahu Co. Ltd (1994) 2 SCR 333 that determinative factor to decide whether an employee is a workman u/s 2 (s) of I.D. Act is the principal and main work discharged by him and thus predominant nature of job for which workman is employed and not the work done by him incidentally or for fraction of time during employment, the relevant extract of above-said judgment is reproduced herein:
"After giving our careful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears to us that whether or not an employee is a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act is required to be determined with reference to his principal nature of duties and LIR No. 108/2024 Pranesh Jha vs M/s Wat Consulting Services Pvt Ltd.Page No. 7 /22
functions. Such question is required to be determined with reference to the facts and circumstances of the case and materials on record and it is not possible to lay down any straitjacket formula which can decide the dispute as to the real nature of duties and functions being performed by an employee in all cases. When an employee is employed to do the types of work enumerated in the definition of workman under Section 2(s), there is hardly any difficulty in treating him as a workman under the appropriate classification but in the complexity of industrial or commercial organisations quite a large number of employees are often required to do more than one kind of work. In such cases, it becomes necessary to determine under which classification the employee will fall for the purpose of deciding whether he comes within the definition of workman or goes out of it. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of this Court in Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Co. of India Ltd. v. Burmah Shell Management Staff Assn5. In All India Reserve Bank Employees' Assn. v. Reserve Bank of India, it has been held by this Court that the word 'supervise' and its derivatives are not words of precise import and must often be construed in the light of context, for unless controlled, they cover an easily simple oversight and direction as manual work coupled with the power of inspection and superintendence of the manual work of others. It has been rightly contended by both the learned counsel that the designation of an employee is not of much importance and what is important is the nature of duties being performed by the employee. The determinative factor is the main duties of the employee concerned and not some works incidentally done. In other words, what is, in substance, the work which employee does or what in substance he is employed to do. Viewed from this angle, if the employee is mainly doing supervisory work but incidentally or for a fraction of time also does some manual or clerical work, the employee should be held to be doing supervisory works. Conversely, if the main work is of manual, clerical or of technical nature, the mere fact that some supervisory or other work is also done by the employee incidentally or only a small fraction of working time is devoted to some supervisory works, the employee will come within the purview of 'workman' as defined in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
LIR No. 108/2024 Pranesh Jha vs M/s Wat Consulting Services Pvt Ltd.Page No. 8 /22
27. It has also been observed in Lenin Kumar Ray vs M/s Express Publication (Maderaj) Ltd 2024 INSC 802 that "determinative factor for "workman" covered under section 2 (s) of the I.D.Act is the principal duties and functions performed by an employee in the establishment and not merely the designation of his post. Whether or not an employee is a 'workman' under Section 2(s) of I. D. Act is required to be determined with reference to his principal nature of duties and functions and the designation is not of much important and what is important is nature of duties being performed by employee."
28. Thus, drawing guidance from abovecited judicial precedents, it is clear that to determine whether workman is covered under section 2 (s) of I.D.Act. This Court has to analyse the predominant nature of his job as well as principal and main duties carried out by him in management.
29. In this regard, it is relevant to note that in judgment of Union Carbide (India) Ltd. vs Ramesh Kumbla & Others 1999 (1) BOMCR705, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has laid down following 'tests' to find out whether the workman was working in 'supervisory capacity' on the basis of the judgment of Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co. of India Ltd. v. The Burmah Shell Management Staff Association 1971 AIR 922 and other cases and these tests are re-produced herein:-
"Broadly speaking the test that have emerged from the ratio of the decisions can be summed up as under :-
i) It is the dominant purpose of the employment that is relevant and not some additional duties which may be performed by the employee.
ii) It is not the designation of the post held by the employee which is relevant, but what is relevant is the nature of duties performed by the employee.
LIR No. 108/2024 Pranesh Jha vs M/s Wat Consulting Services Pvt Ltd.
Page No. 9 /22iii) The Court has to find out whether the employee can bind the company in the matter of some decisions taken on behalf of the company.
iv) What is the nature of the supervisory duties performed by the employee? Do they include directing the subordinates to do their work and/or to oversee their performance?
v) Does the employee have power either to recommend or sanction leave of the workmen working under him?
vi) Does he have the power to take any disciplinary action against the workmen working under him?
vii) Does he have power to assign duties and distribute the work?
viii) Does the employee have the authority to indent material and to distribute the same amongst the workmen?
ix) Does the employee have power to supervise the work of men or does he supervise only machines and not the work of men?
x) Does the employee have any workmen working under him and does he write their confidential reports?
30. In order to discharge the onus of establishing that he is covered within ambit of section 2(s) of ID Act, workman has testified in his evidence affidavit Ex. WW1/A that he was appointed on 19.08.2019 as 'Senior System Analyst' in the management and in support of his oral testimony, he has relied on documentary evidence, including his appraisal letter dated 30.08.2022 as Ex. WW1/1, grant letter as Ex. WW1/2 and experience certificate Ex. WW1/4.
31. The testimony of the workman on this point has remained intact and even during his cross-examination by Ld. AR of the management, no question or suggestion was put to him regarding nature of his duties or whether he was discharging any work of managerial or supervisory nature in management or whether he used to oversee or supervise work of any other employee of management.
LIR No. 108/2024 Pranesh Jha vs M/s Wat Consulting Services Pvt Ltd.
Page No. 10 /2232. Management has also not specifically pleaded that workman was primarily discharging duties of managerial or supervisory nature, in management. Furthermore, the management has not led any evidence to substantiate its claim that the work done by the workman in the management was managerial, administrative or of supervisory nature. No document has been produced by management to show that workman used to allot or distribute work to any employee or scrutinized work of any employee.
33. Thus, no credible evidence has been brought on record by the management to establish that claimant is not covered within the ambit of statutory definition of the 'workman' as defined in section 2(s) of ID Act.
34. Thus, for the forgoing reasons, this Court is of considered opinion that management has failed to prove that workman herein is not covered within the statutory definition of the 'workman' as defined in section 2(s) of ID Act. Accordingly, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the workman and against the management.
ISSUE NO. 2 & 3 Whether the claimant had voluntarily resigned from the services of the management after full and final settlement with the management? OPM & Whether the services of claimant have been terminated illegally and or unjustifiably by the management? OPW.
LIR No. 108/2024 Pranesh Jha vs M/s Wat Consulting Services Pvt Ltd.
Page No. 11 /2235. Issue No. 2 & 3 are decided together, as they are inter- connected.
36. The onus to prove issue no.2 was on the management, while onus to prove issue no. 3 was on the workman.
37. The claim of the workman is that he was appointed in the management as Senior System Analysist since 19.08.2019 and his last drawn salary was Rs. 64,680/-. He has alleged that the management did not provide him legal facilities like attendance card, leave book, identity card, overtime, bonus, minimum wages and timely payment of the salary and that when he demanded these legal facilities from management, management out of vengeance had terminated his services on 24.02.2023 without any notice and after forcefully taking this signatures on black papers, blank vouchers and full and final settlement. He has claimed that he had sent his demand notice to management on 25.03.2023. The workman in his rejoinder, has denied the averments of the management that he had left /resigned from service.
38. Management has fairly admitted in its written statement that workman had worked in management as Senior System Analysist/Senior Software Engineer from 19.08.2019 to 24.02.2023 at last drawn salary of Rs. 64,680/-. However, management has denied that it had terminated the workman. Instead, management has asserted that workman had left/resigned from service on 24.02.2023, after obtaining full and final form dated 07.3.2023 from management.
39. In order to prove his claim, workman has testified in his evidence affidavit Ex. WW1/A on same lines as his LIR No. 108/2024 Pranesh Jha vs M/s Wat Consulting Services Pvt Ltd.
Page No. 12 /22statement of claim and he has relied on documents Ex. WW1/1 to Ex. WW1/7. He has admitted in evidence affidavit Ex. WW1/A that after his termination on 24.02.2023, he had found alternate employment on 24.04.2023 and he has further admitted in his cross-examination that he had been again unemployed since 02.06.2025.
40. Management has opted not to lead any evidence in its defence.
41. In the case at hand, management has admitted employer-
employee relationship with workman as Senior System Analysist /senior software engineer from 19.08.2019 to 24.02.2023 at last drawn monthly salary of Rs. 64,680/-.
42. The only bone of contention between the parties is whether workman had left/resigned from services of management as claimed by the management or whether he was illegally terminated by management, as claimed by the workman.
43. This Court now proceeds to analysis the claim of the management that the workman had left/resigned from the management on 24.02.2023 after executing full and final settlement dated 07.03.2023 with management.
44. Firstly, this plea of management in its written statement that workman had left /resigned from job on 24.02.2023 is itself contradiction in terms, as logically employee cannot leave (abandon) his job and at the same time, resign from his service as resignation is quitting the job with intimation to the employer followed by approval of employer, while LIR No. 108/2024 Pranesh Jha vs M/s Wat Consulting Services Pvt Ltd.
Page No. 13 /22leaving or abandonment of job is relinquishment of job without intimation to employer.
45. Secondly, while the stand of management in its written statement was that workman had resigned from management on 24.02.2023 after executing full and final settlement dated 07.03.2023, on the contrary during cross-examination of the workman, the management has taken an entirely different stand that workman had left the services of management as he was not paid his over-time dues, bonus and earned wages by the management as evident from the suggestion given by Ld. AR of the management to the workman during his cross- examination Thus, evidently, management has taken contradictory and inconsistent defence pleas at different stages of the trial, which thus renders its version unreliable and unworthy of credence.
46. Thus, considering that the ground of defence pleaded by management in its written statement is at variance with defence taken by management during cross-examination of workman, the version of the management does not inspire confidence of the Court.
47. Even though, the management had taken plea in its written statement that workman had resigned from its services on 24.02.2023, however, not only the management has failed to prove the factum of resignation of workman by putting any such question or suggestion to workman during his cross- examination but on the contrary, management had introduced a new defence in cross-examination of workman that he had left the service of the management as the LIR No. 108/2024 Pranesh Jha vs M/s Wat Consulting Services Pvt Ltd.
Page No. 14 /22management had not paid his overtime, bonus and earned wages.
48. Also, the management has failed to prove that there was full and final settlement dated 07.03.2025 between management and workman regarding all the dues of the workman, as no such question or even suggestion was given to the workman during his cross-examination. Moreover, even the alleged full and final settlement/clearance form was neither put to the workman during his cross-exam-examination for admission/denial thereof nor it was proved, as per law. Thus, this plea of management has also remained unproved.
49. Thus, in view of foregoing discussions and observations, this Court is of the opinion that the management has miserably failed to prove that workman had resigned from job on 24.02.2023 or that there was full and final settlement dated 07.03.2023 between workman and management, as there are several contradictions, lacuna and material variations in version of the management, which renders its version unworthy of credence. Accordingly, Issue no. 2 is decided against the management and in favour of the workman.
50. Now, this Court proceeds to analyse the claim of the workman that he was illegally terminated by the management on 24.02.2023. Ld. AR of management has contended that the workman has not produced his termination letter to substantiate his claim of illegal termination by management.
51. In the case at hand, the claim of workman is that he was terminated by the management on 24.02.2023, without prior LIR No. 108/2024 Pranesh Jha vs M/s Wat Consulting Services Pvt Ltd.
Page No. 15 /22notice and without compliance of statutory and legal provisions in this regard and to substantiate his claim, he has testified in his evidence affidavit Ex. WW1/A on the same lines. Admittedly, no termination letter has been placed on record by workman.
52. However, the testimony of the workman has remained intact on this point as even during his cross-examination by Ld. AR of management, he had not been able to controvert or rebut his claim on this point, by bringing out any contradiction or inconsistency in his testimony. Management has not led management's evidence to prove its version. Thus, there is no credible evidence, oral or documentary, on record to doubt the claim of the workman on this point.
53. Accordingly, in absence of any credible evidence on record to hold otherwise, this Court holds that workman had succeeded in establishing that his services were terminated by the management on 24.02.2023, without compliance of mandatory provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and therefore, the termination of his service on 24.02.2023 by the management was not only illegal, but also unjustified. Thus, Issue no. 3 is decided in favour of workman and against the management.
54. Thus, as already held, Issue no. 2 is decided against the management and in favour of workman, while issue no. 3 is decided in favour of the workman and against the management.
ISSUE NO. 4 (RELIEF) LIR No. 108/2024 Pranesh Jha vs M/s Wat Consulting Services Pvt Ltd.
Page No. 16 /22Whether workman is entitled to any relief and consequential benefits, if any and what directions are necessary in this respect? OPW
55. The workman in the present case has prayed for relief of reinstatement in the service with full back wages and all the consequential benefits.
56. In the case at hand, on the basis of oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, this Court has already observed here-in above that workman has succeeded in establishing that after her appointment on 19.08.2019 by management, he was illegally and unjustifiably terminated by management on 24.02.2023.
57. In the judgment of Tapash Kumar Paul Vs BSNL & Anr, JT 2014 (7) SC 589, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Court may either award the compensation or order for reinstatement in the cases which do not fall within the five categories as described by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment and the relevant extract of aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under:-
"It is no doubt true that a Court may pass an order substituting an order of reinstatement by awarding compensation but the same has to be based on justifiable grounds viz.(i) where the industry is closed; (ii) where the employee has superannuated or going to retire shortly and no period of service is left to his credit; (iii) where the workman has been rendered incapacitated to discharge the duties and cannot be reinstated and/or; (iv) when he has lost confidence of the Management to discharge duties. What is sought to be emphasised is that there may be appropriate case on facts which may justify substituting the order of reinstatement by award of compensation, but that has to be supported by some legal and justifiable reasons LIR No. 108/2024 Pranesh Jha vs M/s Wat Consulting Services Pvt Ltd.Page No. 17 /22
indicating why the order of reinstatement should be allowed to be substituted by award of compensation. In the instant matter, we are not satisfied that the appellant's case falls in to any of the categories referred to hereinbefore which would justify compensation in lieu of reinstatement. We thus find no justification for the High Court so as to interfere with the Award passed by the Tribunal which was affirmed even by the single Judge, but the Division Bench thought it appropriate to set aside the order of reinstatement without specifying any reasons whatsoever, as to why it substituted with compensation of a meager amount of Rs.20,000/- to the appellant."
58. In the case at hand, admittedly, the workman had joined alternative employment on 24.04.2023 deposed by him in his evidence affidavit Ex. WW1/A that after his illegal termination by the management, he had found alternative employment w.e.f 24.04.2023, though he had further voluntarily stated in his cross-examination that he had been again unemployed since 02.06.2025.
59. In the given facts and circumstances of the present case, the relationship between workman and the management would not have remained cordial due to rift, litigation and in view of the fact that she had joined other establishment in the meanwhile. Therefore, it would not be in interest of industrial peace to reinstate the workman in the management.
60. Accordingly, considering the short length of service of the workman in the management and in peculiar facts of instant case, this Court is of the opinion that grant of lump-sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement is appropriate relief and shall sub-serve the interest of justice in the present case.
LIR No. 108/2024 Pranesh Jha vs M/s Wat Consulting Services Pvt Ltd.
Page No. 18 /2261. Next, the workman has prayed for back wages for the period of admitted forced unemployment from 24.02.2023 to 24.04.2023 as admittedly the workman had found alternate employment on 24.04.2023. The management has not rebutted or controverted this claim of the workman for his back wages for the above said period as he was not cross- examined on this point. Thus claim of workman for back wages for abovesaid period has remained uncontroverted.
62. However, it is to be borne in mind that the workman has also not discharged the burden of proving the specific efforts made by him to secure alternative employment during the period of alleged unemployment, by specifically stating the nature of efforts made by him to search for job and mere silence of the workman on these aspects cannot justify grant of back wages in entirety and reliance in this regard is placed on judgment of the Bombay High Court in Navin J. Surti Vs. Modi Rubber Ltd. and another, (2004 II CLR 46). Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that workman having failed to prove that he had made efforts to search for job during the period of his unemployment, shall dis-entitle him to grant of full back wages for period of his unemployment from 24.02.2023 to 23.04.2023.
63. At the same time, it has to be borne in mind that altogether denial of back wages to workman, would amount to indirectly punishing him for illegal act of the management and in this regard the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard in Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti LIR No. 108/2024 Pranesh Jha vs M/s Wat Consulting Services Pvt Ltd.
Page No. 19 /22Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya and Ors., (2013) 10 SCC 324 is relevant and the same is being reproduced hereunder:
"22. If the employer wants to deny back wages to the employee or contest his entitlement to get consequential benefits, then it is for him/her to specifically plead and prove that during the intervening period the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same emoluments. The denial of back wages to an employee, who has suffered due to an illegal act of the employer would amount to indirectly punishing the employee concerned and rewarding the employer by relieving him of the obligation to pay back wages including the emoluments."
64. In view of above-stated judicial precedents, this Court is of the opinion that since workman has established that he had been unemployed during the period from 24.02.2023 to 23.04.2023, after his illegal termination by the management, therefore, grant of reasonable compensation, in lieu of back wages for the said period, shall be appropriate relief in the present case.
65. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has discussed broad principles regarding grant of back wages in the case titled T he Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Dr. Dharmendra Singh, 2016 SCC Online Del 4718 , has held as under:-
"44. So far as grant of back wages is concerned, it depends upon case to case. The issue of payment of back wages on reinstatement of a workman has been discussed by this court in LPA No.24/2013 titled "Delhi Transport Corporation v. Sarjeevan Kumar" decided on 21st January, 2013, the legal proposition in this regard was enunciated as under:-
LIR No. 108/2024 Pranesh Jha vs M/s Wat Consulting Services Pvt Ltd.Page No. 20 /22
(i) Payment of full backwages is not automatic on Labour Court/Tribunal granting reinstatement of workman.
(ii) The same principle is equally applicable in case an order of dismissal is set aside by the Labour Court/Tribunal on the ground of non-compliance of Section 25F of the I.D. Act.
(iii) The Labour Court/Tribunal shall give reasons for determining the specified quantum of backwages.
(iv) The burden is on the workman to show that he is entitled to full backwages or to a reasonable backwages and he is not gainfully employed during the period he was not in service of the management.
(v) Once materials are placed by workman on the above, the burden shifts on to the Management to disprove such claim.
(vi) In the event, the Labour Court/Tribunal fails to give any reason to quantify backwages, the High Court can go into the said issue and decide on on quantum
66. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as length of service of workman in management and the nature of his employment therein, this Court deems it fit to direct management to pay to the workman lump-sum compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- (Rupees One Lac Seventy Five Thousand Only) as compensation in lieu of reinstatement, back wages and consequential reliefs.
67. Management is directed to pay the aforesaid amount within 30 days of publication of this award to the workman, failing which, the amount shall also be carrying an interest @ 8% per annum till the date of its realization.
68. Accordingly, the statement of claim of workman is thus allowed.
69. Award is passed and reference is answered accordingly.
LIR No. 108/2024 Pranesh Jha vs M/s Wat Consulting Services Pvt Ltd.
Page No. 21 /2270. Digitally signed copy of the award be sent to the Labour Commissioner for publication. The Award be also sent to server. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally Announced in open Court signed by RITU RITU Date:
SINGH SINGH 2026.02.24 on 24th February 2026 16:18:30 +0530 (RITU SINGH) District Judge, POLC-IV/RADC, New Delhi/24.02.2026 LIR No. 108/2024 Pranesh Jha vs M/s Wat Consulting Services Pvt Ltd.Page No. 22 /22