Delhi District Court
Shiv Shankar vs M/S Sahni Rubber Industries on 13 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF RITU SINGH,
DISTRICT JUDGE & ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
PRESIDING OFFICER : LABOUR COURT - IV,
ROUSE AVENUE COURTS : NEW DELHI.
LIR No: 20/22
CNR No. DLCT-13-000077-2022
Sh. Shiv Shankar,
S/o Sh. Dasai Pandit
R/o 613, Shaheed Nagar, Sahibabad,
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, 201006 ...WORKMAN
VERSUS
M/s Sahani Rubber Industries
Through its Legal heir Smt. Snehlata Sahani
B-1, Jhilmil Industrial Area, Delhi-95 ...MANAGEMENT
Date of institution of the case : 07.01.2022
Date of final arguments : 07.02.2026
Date of passing the Award : 13.02.2026
AWARD
1.Vide this order, this Court shall decide the reference no. 24(149)ID/39/NE/20/Lab. Ref.2021/6211 dated 27.12.2021, u/s 10 (1) (c) and 12 (5) of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which was sent by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, District East/North-East, Govt. of NCT of Delhi on a complaint filed by workman against the Management, wherein the following reference was to be answered:-
"Whether workman Sh. Shiv Shankar S/o Sh. Dasai Pandit abandoned his services on his own or his services have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management; and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in the respect?"
2. Notice of the reference was issued to the workman. Pursuant thereto, the workman has filed this statement of claim LIR No.20/22 Shiv Shankar Vs. M/s Sahani Rubber Industries Page No.1 against the management stating therein that he was working with the management on the post of 'Machine Man', since 1982 and his last drawn monthly salary was Rs. 14,842/-.
3. The workman has claimed in his statement of claim that the management had not paid dues of his earned wages since the month of December 2019 and as a result, he had faced financial crisis and therefore, through his Union, he had filed complaint before Delhi Government and Labour Office for his wages, but management had not paid his earned wages for December 2019 and that management had only paid earned wages for April 2020 and some additional amount in May 2020, through cheque.
4. It is stated in the claim statement that when Govt had relaxed the restrictions imposed during Covid lockdown and allowed the establishments to function he had approached the management for resuming his job on 01.06.2020, but the management had not taken him on duty and that management had thus illegally terminated him from service on 01.06.2020. The workman has alleged that management has not served any prior notice to him nor paid dues of his salary before his illegal termination and that he was illegally and improperly terminated on 01.06.2020, without any proper notice.
5. It is claim of the workman that on 18.06.2020, he along with his co-workers (through their Union) had filed complaint against management in Labour office and on 06.07.2020, he along with his co-workers had sent a demand letter to the management, through speed post, seeking his reinstatement and other reliefs.
6. It is claim of the workman that he had filed an LIR No.20/22 Shiv Shankar Vs. M/s Sahani Rubber Industries Page No.2 industrial dispute before the Labor Conciliation Officer on 20.07.2020 and Conciliation officer has repeatedly called the management for conciliation, but due to non-cooperative attitude of the management, no settlement could be arrived at and thereafter, the present case was referred to this Court for adjudication.
7. It is claimed by the workman that neither any charge-sheet was issued against him nor any domestic inquiry was conducted against him, before terminating him and that even Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 was not complied with and that the termination of his service on 01.06.2020 is illegal, unfair and against the principles of natural justice.
8. Workman has claimed that after his termination, he had tried to find alternative employment but could not find the same and that he is unemployed since date of termination and that he is willing to join his duty again with the management.
9. Workman has challenged his termination as illegal, unfair and against the principles of natural justice. By way of present petition, he has prayed that an award be passed in his favor and against the management for his reinstatement in service and grant of back wages and other consequential benefits.
VERSION OF MANAGEMENT IN ITS WRITTEN STATEMENT
10. Notice of the statement of claim of the workman was issued to the management and pursuant to the service of the notice, the management had appeared before the Court and filed its written statement/reply.
11. Management has asserted in its written statement that it LIR No.20/22 Shiv Shankar Vs. M/s Sahani Rubber Industries Page No.3 had never terminated the workman and that workman had himself stopped reporting for duty in the post-Covid period and that the present claim of the workman is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
12. Management has alleged that its proprietor had died on 02.12.2018 and thereafter, factory where the workman was working, had been sealed by SDM and its electricity was disconnected on 13.11.2019.
13. It is stated that the workman had never turned up to work in post-lockdown period and therefore, the workman is not entitled to any dues from the management.
14. Management has alleged that workman had filed application before Labour Officer under Delhi Shops and Establishment Act, 1954 regarding non-payment of his earned wages against the management and that management had replied to the same stating that it would make the payment of salary of the workman by 10.03.2021 as per the demand notice dated 13.03.2020. Management has claimed that the workman had not made any demand for any salary for the period after 2021, before the said authority.
15. Management has alleged that the workman had not turned up for duty after lockdown therefore, he is not entitled to any dues or any wages on the ground of "no work no pay". Management has denied that workman had reported for duty on 01.06.2020 or that he was ever denied entry in the premises by the management, to join his duty. Management has denied that it had terminated the workman, and it has been asserted by the management that the workman himself had not reported for duty on 01.06.2020 and that he had remained absent without LIR No.20/22 Shiv Shankar Vs. M/s Sahani Rubber Industries Page No.4 authorization, ever since the post-lockdown period.
16. Management has denied the remaining allegations of workman levelled in his statement of claim and management has prayed for dismissal of present claim petition of the workman.
17. The workman has denied the allegations of management in his replication and reiterated his claim against management.
18. Thereafter, vide order dated 23.09.2022, the following issues were framed in view of pleadings of the parties and terms of reference :
(i) In terms of reference.
(ii) Relief.
EVIDENCE OF WORKMAN
19. In order to prove the case, the workman appeared as witness WW1 and filed his evidence affidavit Ex. WW-1/A wherein he reiterated the contents of statement of claim on solemn affirmation. Besides this, he had also placed on record the documents, that is, Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/8 (OSR), which are:-
(1) Ex. WW-1/1 i.e. Copy of complaint dated 18.06.2020
2) Ex. WW-1/2 I.s copy of demand notice dated 06.07.2020,
3) Ex.WW1/3 i.e. copy of two postal receipt
4) Ex. WW1/4 i.e. copy of tracking report
5) Ex.WW1/5 i.e. Copy of ESI card (OSR)
6) Ex.WW1/6 i.e. copy of deposit slip of PF (OSR)
7) Ex.WW1/7 i.e. copy Statement of claim filed before the conciliation officer (OSR).
8) Ex.WW1/8 i.e. copy of reply sent to management dated 23.03.2021.
20. The workman was cross-examined by AR for the management.
LIR No.20/22 Shiv Shankar Vs. M/s Sahani Rubber Industries Page No.5
21. Thereafter, workman's evidence was closed and matter was thereafter listed for management evidence.
EVIDENCE OF MANAGEMENT
22. The management has examined Sh. Mukesh Sharma S/o Sh. K. D. Sharma, as MW1 who has filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.MW1/A wherein he has reiterated the version of written statement of management. Besides this, he had also relied on the documents Ex.MW1/1, Ex.MW1/2 and Ex. WW1/3. This witness was cross-examined by AR for the workman.
23. It is relevant to mention herein that MW1 Sh. Mukesh Kumar has also filed his additional evidence by way of affidavit Ex. MW1/A and he has relied on document Ex. MW1/C which is the copy of original certified Standing Order of management. Thereafter, management evidence was closed vide order dated 21.12.2024.
24. Thereafter, matter was listed for final arguments. Judgments were filed on behalf of management in support of its submissions. This Court has heard the detailed final arguments addressed by AR of both the sides and has gone through the record, judgments and documents on record.
ARGUMENTS OF WORKMAN:-
25. Ld. AR for the workman has argued that workman was working with the management since 1982 on the post of 'Machine Man' with last drawn monthly salary of Rs.14,842/ and his services were illegally terminated by management on 01.06.2020, without assigning any reasons, without any prior notice and without paying his entire wages and he has prayed for reinstatement of the workman in services alongwith full back wages and other consequential relief for the workman. LIR No.20/22 Shiv Shankar Vs. M/s Sahani Rubber Industries Page No.6 ARGUMENTS OF MANAGEMENT
26. Ld. AR for the management had argued that after demise of proprietor of management on 02.12.2018, the workman had voluntary left his job in the post-lockdown period and that the present frivolous and vexatious petition has been filed by him on false allegations, without any material on record against the management and that the present petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost. It is further argued that the entire emoluments of the workman have already been paid to him, and no dues remain towards the management and further the workman has left his job himself.
27. The issue-wise finds of this Court are as under:-
Issue no. 1 (1) In terms of reference
28. As per the terms of the present reference no. 24 (149)ID/39/NE/20/LabRef.2021/6211dated 27.12.2021, question referred to this Court for adjudication was -
"Whether workman Sh. Shiv Shankar S/o Sh. Dasai Pandit abandoned his services on his own or his services have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management; and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in the respect?"
29. Thus, considering the terms of reference, this Court proceeds to analyse the facts of the present case, in order to determine whether the workman had 'left' or 'abandoned' his services on his own or whether his services were illegally or unjustifiably terminated by the management.
30. The onus to prove 'abandonment' of services by the workman, is on the management as this plea was set up by the management and the the onus to prove his illegal termination, LIR No.20/22 Shiv Shankar Vs. M/s Sahani Rubber Industries Page No.7 was on the workman as it was his contention that management had illegally and unjustifiably terminated his services.
31. The claim of workman is that he had joined the management in the year 1982 as 'Machine Man'. He has alleged that during COVID pandemic, the management had remained closed, pursuant to notifications by the Central Government (dated 25.03.2020) and of NCT of Delhi (dated 23.03.2020).
32. The workman has alleged that when the restrictions due to COVID-19 were relaxed, he had reported on duty to management on 01.06.2020, but the management had not allowed him to join his duty and thus, management had illegally terminated him from service on 01.06.2020, without any notice, without payment of earned wages of December 2019 and without payment of his legal dues and earned wages. Workman had sent demand notice dated 06.07.2020 to the management demanding his reinstatement.
33. On the other hand, the management has admitted in its written statement that workman was its employee, though management has denied that it had terminated the workman. Instead, management has contended in its written statement that the workman had not reported to work in post-lockdown period. Management has denied the allegation that workman had reported on duty on 01.06.2020. Instead, management has asserted that workman had remained absent from duty without authorization, ever since the post-lockdown period. MW1 has relied on copy of 'Chaspa notice' purportedly affixed by the management on its notice board and the said notice is Ex. MW1/2.
34. The next defence taken by the management is that its LIR No.20/22 Shiv Shankar Vs. M/s Sahani Rubber Industries Page No.8 factory was sealed by SDM on 13.11.2019 and its electricity was also disconnected on 13.11.2019 and in support of these submissions, the management witness MW1 Sh. Mukesh Kumar had relied on copy of the reply (Ex.MW1/2) filed by the management before the Labour Office, during the conciliation proceedings.
35. In the case at hand, management has admitted employer- employee relation with workman. Management has not disputed the fact that workman has been working in management since 1982 as Machine Man.
36. The actual bone of contention between the parties is whether the workman had voluntarily 'left' his job or whether he was illegally terminated by management and since management has set up the plea that workman had left his job on his own, the onus was on the management to prove the same.
37. In order to prove its plea that workman had not reported for duty in post-lockdown period nor on 01.06.2020 and remained unauthorizedly absent from duty, management has examined MW1, who has testified in his evidence affidavit Ex. MW1/A that management had affixed 'Chaspa notice' dated 31.05.2020 (Ex. MW1/1) on its notice Board in support of contention of the management that by way of this 'Chaspa notice' (Ex. MW1/1), intimation/notice was given to its employees by the management to report on duty within 15 days from the abovesaid notice Ex.MW1/1.
38. Ld. AR of the management had argued that since the present workman had failed to report on duty even after the aforesaid offer/notice given by the management through its 'Chaspa notice' (Ex.MW1/1), this conduct of the workman LIR No.20/22 Shiv Shankar Vs. M/s Sahani Rubber Industries Page No.9 indicates that he did not want to join in the service of the management and had voluntarily 'left' its service and also disentitles him from claiming reinstatement and back wages from the management and to buttress his submissions he has relied on the judgment of Mukesh Khanna vs Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh & Anr 2000 LLR 168; Raju Sankar Poojary vs Chembur Warehouse Company and Anr 2003 LLR 1150; Tej Pal vs Gopal Narain & Sons & Anr 2006 LLR 1142 and Competition Printing Press vs Shriut Jaiprakash Singh & Anr 2001 LLR 768.
39. Admittedly, management had not sent any notice to the workman via registered post/speed post or conveyed the information to the workman either by way of letter/notice sent to his address or telephonically or even via text message/Whatsapp regarding aforesaid notice to resume his duty in management.
40. Moreover, the contention of the management that it had notified to its employees via 'Chaspa notice' (Ex. MW1/1) to report to duty within 15 days, is also inconsistent and contradictory to the admission of the management in its reply dated 27.11.2020 (Ex.MW1/2) filed before Conciliation Officer wherein management had admitted that its factory was sealed and its electricity was also disconnected on 13.11.2019 and also contradicts the admission of the management in another letter dated 29.02.2020 (part of Ex.MW1/2 as Annexure-B) sent by the management to Deputy Labour Commissioner, Jhilmil Colony, Delhi wherein management had admitted that its manufacturing process had ceased as its factory licence had been seized and that its workmen could not work, as electricity of factory was disconnected on 13.11.2019.
41. Admittedly, the above-said condition of management had LIR No.20/22 Shiv Shankar Vs. M/s Sahani Rubber Industries Page No.10 persisted in subsequent months and there was no change in these conditions uptill the conclusion of conciliation proceedings. Therefore, in the given circumstances, if the factory of the management was sealed on 13.11.2019, rendering its workmen 'workless', then in such circumstances, it was next to impossible for the management to offer work to its employees or to ask them to resume their job in management and therefore, the plea taken by management that it had notified through 'Chaspa Notice' to its employees, including the present workman, to rejoin its service, is not only contradictory to reality demonstrable from Annexure- B to Ex. MW1/2, but is mere a eyewash and thus renders this defence plea of management unreliable.
42. It is also pertinent to note that the written statement of the management is conspicuously silent regarding alleged 'Chaspa notice' dated 31.05.2020 Ex. MW1/2 and thus, apparently, it is material improvement over the version of the management in its WS and thus tantamounts to contradiction and is accordingly not reliable.
43. Even other-wise, it is not disputed that after relaxation in restrictions/lockdown imposed due to Covid-19, the workman had acted swiftly and complained to Additional Labour Commissioner, New Delhi about his illegal termination by the management vide his letter dated 18.06.2020 (Ex. WW1/1) and contemporaneously sent notice to management on 06.07.2020, seeking his reinstatement from management.
44. Thus, evening assuming for the sake of arguments that management had notified to its employees to join duty within 15 days from 'Chaspa notice' dated 31.5.2020, even then from the above-said conduct of the workman, the only inference that can LIR No.20/22 Shiv Shankar Vs. M/s Sahani Rubber Industries Page No.11 be drawn is that the workman had no intention to abandon or leave his job as his conduct clearly establishes that he had acted as any other reasonable and prudent man in need of job and reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment of Buckingham Co. Vs. Venkatiah & Ors (1964) 4 SCR, w herein it was held that 'abandonment' or relinquishment of service is always a question of intention of the workman, which is a question of fact to be determined on the basis of surrounding circumstances, including the length of absence. It was further held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case that 'under common law an inference that an employee has abandonment or relinquished service is not easily drawn unless from the length of absence and from other surrounding circumstances, an inference to that effect can be legitimately drawn and it can be assumed that the employee intended to abandon service'.
45. Similarly, in G.T. Lad v. Chemical and Fibres of India Ltd. (1979) 1 SCC 590, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows -
"7. From the connotations reproduced above it clearly follows that to constitute abandonment, there must be total or complete giving up of duties so as to indicate an intention not to resume the same. In Buckingham Co. v. Venkatiah (1963) II LLJ 638 SC it was observed by this Court that under common law an inference that an employee has abandoned or relinquished service is not easily drawn unless from the length of absence and from other surrounding circumstances an inference to that effect can be legitimately drawn and it can be assumed that the employee intended to abandon service. Abandonment or relinquishment of service is always a question of intention, and normally, such an intention cannot be attributed to an employee without adequate evidence in that behalf. Thus, whether there has been a voluntary abandonment of service or not is a question of fact which has to be determined in the light of the surrounding circumstances of each case." (emphasis LIR No.20/22 Shiv Shankar Vs. M/s Sahani Rubber Industries Page No.12 supplied)
46. Thus, from the conduct of workman and circumstances of the case, there is no indication of intention on the part of the workman to abandon or relinquish his job, rather it is indicative of his willingness and readiness to join the service of the management and to continue in his service. In view of the foregoing observations, this Court is of the considered opinion that the management has failed to establish that the workman had voluntarily abandoned or left his job.
47. Now this Court proceeds to analysis the allegations of the workman against the management that he was illegally terminated by the management on 01.06.2020. Ld. AR of management has contended that the workman has failed to produce his termination letter or any other documentary evidence to prove his termination by management.
48. In order to discharge the onus of proving his illegal termination by the management, the workman has testified in his evidence affidavit that on 01.06.2020, when he had reported for duty to the management, the management had not allowed him to join his duty. The workman has been cross-examined on this point by Ld. AR of the management, but the testimony of the workman on this point has remained intact as Ld. AR of the management has not been able to discredit this witness by bringing out any contradiction or inconsistency in his testimony.
49. It is also relevant to point out that the workman had voluntarily deposed in his cross-examination that when he had reported for the duty to the management, he was apprised by the management that there was no work in the management and this deposition of the workman finds ample corroboration from the LIR No.20/22 Shiv Shankar Vs. M/s Sahani Rubber Industries Page No.13 admission of the management in its letter dated 29.02.2020 (part of Ex.MW1/2 as Annexure-B) sent by the management to Deputy Labour Commissioner, Jhilmil Colony, Delhi, wherein the management had categorically admitted that due to disconnection of electricity in its factory w.e.f. 13.11.2019, its employees could not work and even its manufacturing process had also ceased. Thus, in view of admission of management in its letter dated 29.02.2020 (part of Ex. MW1/2 as Annexure-B), the claim of workman regarding refusal of work by the management on grounds of 'no work', has been established.
50. In the case at hand, as already held, management has failed to prove its defence that the workman had voluntarily left his job. However, the workman had succeeded in establishing that his services were terminated by the management on 01.06.2020, without compliance of mandatory provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and therefore, the termination of his service by the management is not only illegal but also unjustified.
51. Before parting with this issue, it is relevant to note that during the course of arguments, Ld. AR of the workman had argued that the termination of the workman is also illegal as the management had failed to issue notice of absenteeism or conducted inquiry against workman for his absenteeism, before terminating him. In rebuttal, Ld. AR of management has relied on Diamond Toys Company (P.) Ltd. Vs. Toofani Ram and Anr., W.P. (C) No. 4501/04 to buttress his submissions that it is n ot obligatory for employer to serve notice or hold inquiry against workman, if he had been absent from duty.
52. It is also not disputed that in the present case management had not issued any show-cause notice to the workman regarding LIR No.20/22 Shiv Shankar Vs. M/s Sahani Rubber Industries Page No.14 his alleged absenteeism from duty and this fact finds corroboration from testimony of MW1 who has admitted in his cross-examination that no show-cause notice was issued by the management to the workman regarding his absenteeism. Admittedly, workman was permanent employee of management as he had been in continuous employment of management since 1982. Therefore, in view of the admitted facts that workman was a permanent employee of the management with approximately 38 years of services in the management, following observations in Management of Horticulture v. Hakoo & Jagar Khan in WP (C) No. 880/2004 decided on 21.03.2013 are relevant and are being reproduced herein: -
"17. The observation of the learned Industrial Adjudicator that the management is obliged to serve a notice and thereafter hold an inquiry into the reasons for the absence of the daily rated/muster roll/casual workers, in my view, is erroneous. A daily rated/muster roll/casual worker has no obligation to report for duty every day. He is completely free to report for work or not to so report. Therefore, if he does not report for duty on any given day, or continuously for any length of time, the management cannot raise a grievance and is not obliged to serve a notice or hold an inquiry against him. The management has the right to take the work from any other casual worker in case a casual worker, who has earlier been serving, stops reporting for work. The management is not obliged to wait for him and, in the process, let the work suffer. The situation would be different in the case of a permanent worker since, in the case of permanent worker, there is a binding obligation both on the employer as well as the employee, where under the employer is obliged to offer work to the workman and pay him his wages, and the workman is equally obliged to work for the employer for the wages that he receives. The management gets the right to serve a notice and to take action against a permanent worker on account of the said binding obligation of the workman. If a permanent workman does not report for duty LIR No.20/22 Shiv Shankar Vs. M/s Sahani Rubber Industries Page No.15 continuously, the work of the management would suffer. The same cannot be said in respect of a daily rated casual worker on muster roll, as the absence of such a worker entitles the management to engage another person as a replacement. A daily rated/muster roll/casual worker is not bound by the rule of discipline which requires him to report every day for work, unlike in the case of a permanent workman. So, if the daily rated casual worker does not report for work, why should the employer be saddled with the duty to serve a notice upon him? As aforesaid, the situation would be different where the daily rated casual workman raises a grievance contemporaneously regarding his disengagement. In that case, his conduct would demonstrate his intention to keep his job as a daily rated casual employee."
53. Therefore, drawing guidance from the above-said judicial precedent, in the case at hand, since the workman was a permanent employee of management, in continuous employment of the management for approximately 38 years, from 1982 till 01.06.2020, therefore, in terms of the judgment of Management of Horticulture v. Hakoo & Jagar Khan (Supra), it was incumbent and obligatory on the part of the management to serve notice of absenteeism on the workman. Admittedly, management had not served any such notice on the workman, and thus this further renders the action of management, unjustified.
54. In view of the foregoing discussions and observations, this Court is of the considered opinion that management has failed to prove that workman had voluntarily left his services, while the workman has succeeded in establishing that he was illegally and unjustifiably terminated by the management. Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided in favour of workman and against the management.
RELIEF
55. The workman has sought relief of reinstatement in the LIR No.20/22 Shiv Shankar Vs. M/s Sahani Rubber Industries Page No.16 service of the management with full back wages along with the continuity of service and all the consequential benefits.
56. The term "reinstatement" has not been elucidated in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. II, 3rd Edition stated that, the word "reinstate" means to reinstall or reestablish (a person or thing in a place, station, condition etc.); to restore to its proper and original state; to reinstate afresh and the word "reinstatement means the action of reinstating; reestablishment. "As per Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, "reinstatement" means 'to reinstall, to reestablish, to place again in a former state, condition, or office, to restore to a state or position from which the object or person had been removed'.
57. In the case titled as Tapash Kumar Paul Vs BSNL & Anr, and reported as of 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. The relevant portion of this 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 emphasized 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 LIR No.20/22 Shiv Shankar Vs. M/s Sahani Rubber Industries Page No.17 some legal and justifiable reasons 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, from the testimony of the workman, it is clear that as on the date of recording of his examination-in- chief on 27.01.2023 before this Court, he had attained the age of 57 years. The workman has categorically admitted in his cross- examination that 58 years is the age of retirement in the management. Thus, in view of the aforesaid admissions of the workman, it is apparent that the workman has already attained the age of superannuation in 2024 and therefore, the case of the workman is covered within the categories as mentioned by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tapas Kumar Paul Vs. BSNL & Anr., (Supra). Accordingly, in these circumstances, grant of compensation in lieu of reinstatement shall be appropriate relief in present case, in view of the guidelines in Tapash Kumar Paul Vs BSNL & Anr (Supra) and same shall sub- serve interest of justice.
59. Further, as regards claim of workman for full back wages , the workman in his statement of claim has claimed that he has been unemployed since the date of his illegal termination by the management, despite his best efforts to find job and has prayed for grant of full back wages.
LIR No.20/22 Shiv Shankar Vs. M/s Sahani Rubber Industries Page No.18
60. In the present case, the management has not brought any credible evidence on record to establish that the workman was gainfully employed during the period of his forced unemployment, after his illegal termination by the management. Even during the cross-examination by Ld. AR of the management, the workman has not been cross-examined on this point and the management has also not been able to show that the workman herein was gainfully employed elsewhere, by summoning relevant witnesses or proving the documents, as per law. Thus the claim of the workman that despite efforts to find job, he had remained unemployed after his termination, has remained unrebutted and uncontroverted.
61. However, it is also relevant to note that after first phase of lockdown imposed due to Covid-19 during 2020, another National Lockdown was imposed during the second wave of Covid-19 in 2021 and during this period the establishments/ factories were again closed and therefore, considering these factors, this Court is of the considered opinion that the workman is not entitled for grant of full back wages in entirety.
62. 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 Junior 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 LIR No.20/22 Shiv Shankar Vs. M/s Sahani Rubber Industries Page No.19 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."
63. Applying the abovesaid guidelines to facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that workman has established that he had been unemployed during the period after his illegal termination by the management and therefore, grant of reasonable compensation, in lieu of back wages, shall be appropriate relief in the present case.
64. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has discussed broad principles regarding grant of backwages in the case titled The 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:-
(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 LIR No.20/22 Shiv Shankar Vs. M/s Sahani Rubber Industries Page No.20 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.
65. Considering that the length of service of workman in management was approximately 38 years and permanent nature of his employment therein, this Court deems it fit to direct management to pay to the workman lump-sum compensation of Rs.6,50,000/- (Rupees Six Lacs Fifty Thousand Only) as compensation in lieu of reinstatement, back wages and consequential reliefs.
66. 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.
67. Accordingly, the statement of claim of workman is thus allowed.
68. Award is passed and reference is answered accordingly.
69. 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
signed by
RITU RITU SINGH
Date:
SINGH 2026.02.13
15:46:23
+0530
Announced in the open (RITU SINGH)
Court on 13.02.2026 District & Addl Sessions Judge,
Presiding Officer Labour Court- IV,
Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi
LIR No.20/22 Shiv Shankar Vs.
M/s Sahani Rubber Industries Page No.21