[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court

Vijay Kumar vs M/S. Karawal Engineering Company & Anr on 8 December, 2025

                          *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                   %                       Judgment Reserved on: 03.12.2025
                                                          Judgment pronounced on: 08.12.2025

                          +      W.P.(C) 7378/2018
                                 VIJAY KUMAR                                    .....Petitioner
                                                 Through:      Mr. Mobin Akhtar and Mr. Syed
                                                               Sood, Advocates

                                                 versus

                                  M/S. KARAWAL ENGINEERING COMPANY & ANR.
                                                                             .....Respondents
                                               Through: Mr. Vijay Sehgal, Advocate

                          CORAM:
                          HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
                                                 JUDGMENT

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed by the claimant/workman

in LIR No. 5774/2016, aggrieved by the Award dated 21.08.2017

passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-

Presiding Officer, Labour Court-XIX, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi,

by which his claim for reinstatement and back wages was

dismissed.

2. In this petition, unless otherwise specified, the parties will

be referred to as described in the original proceedings.

3. In the statement of claim filed by the claimant/workman, it

is alleged that he had been working with the

respondent/management since 24.02.1999, as electrician and his

last drawn wages was ₹11,500/- per month. He was discharging his

duties honestly, diligently and to the entire satisfaction of the

management. The management had taken his signature on several

blank papers, vouchers, and partly printed papers at the time of his

appointment. The papers, on which the workman's signatures had

been taken, are still in the possession of the management. The

workman could not complain about them, as he was in dire need of

a job. He was deprived of various facilities such as appointment

letter, attendance card, bonus, casual leave, etc. by the

respondent/management. The workman had made several oral

requests for the aforesaid legitimate facilities/claims from time to

time. However, the lawful demands of the workman was never

heeded to. As the workman had demanded his lawful rights, the

management unlawfully terminated his services on 08.08.2013

without payment of his earned wages for the period from

01.07.2013 to 07.08.2013, without giving or offering him any

notice or notice pay.

3.1 The workman, through his Union, filed a complaint dated

04.01.2013 before the Labour Office, Hari Nagar, Delhi. However,

the respondent/management did not reinstate him. Thereafter, a

legal notice dated 18.11.2023, demanding payment of his earned

wages, reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of

service, was sent to the respondent/management. However, the

respondent/management neither replied to the said demand notice

nor reinstated the workman. Hence, the workman initiated

conciliation proceedings before the Conciliation Officer,

Government of NCT of Delhi, Hari Nagar, New Delhi and filed his

statement of claim. The respondent/management appeared and

filed certain forged and fabricated documents contending that he

had voluntarily resigned from service and that he had taken his full

and final dues from the respondent/management.

3.2 The respondent/management was not maintaining any

payment of wages register relating to the workman. The

respondent/management had taken signatures of the workman on

blank vouchers at the time of making monthly payments, and one

of such vouchers was fabricated and misused by the

respondent/management to make it appear that the workman had

taken all his dues in full and final settlement. The resignation letter

dated 29.02.2012, relied on by the respondent/management, is one

of the papers on which the signature of the workman had been

taken at the time of joining the service. The service of the

workman had been terminated illegally on 08.08.2013, without

payment of his earned wages for the aforesaid period, without

giving or offering him any notice or notice pay or retrenchment

compensation. The termination is illegal and hence, the claim

seeking reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of

service with all consequential benefits.

3.3 The respondent/management entered appearance and

filed written statement, denying the allegations in the claim. It was

contended that on 29.02.2012, the workman had voluntarily

resigned from his services vide resignation letter dated 29.02.2012,

which was duly accepted by the respondent/management. The

workman had also collected all his dues. Thus, the relationship of

employer and employee ceased to exist. Therefore, it was

contended that the workman was not entitled to any of the reliefs

prayed for.

3.4 On completion of pleadings, necessary issues were

framed by the trial court. The claimant/workman examined himself

as WW1. No oral evidence was adduced by the

respondent/management. Exhibits WW1/XM1 to WW1/XM3 were

marked on behalf of the respondent/management. On consideration

of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides,

the trial court, vide the impugned award, dismissed the claim of the

workman, finding that he had resigned from his job voluntarily

after taking his dues and that his services were not terminated by

the respondent/management. Aggrieved, the claimant/workman

has come up in appeal.

4. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the

claimant/workman that the trial court grossly erred in relying on

exhibits WW1/XM2 and WW1/XM3 to find that he had

voluntarily resigned and taken his dues. According to him, when

the claimant/workman joined service, the respondent/management

made him sign on several blank papers and printed forms, which

were later converted into the resignation letter and the voucher

relied on by the respondent/management. It was submitted that the

materials on record clearly substantiate the case of the workman

that he was illegally terminated and therefore, he is entitled to the

reliefs prayed for.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the

respondent/management submitted that the trial court had correctly

appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record. There is

an inordinate delay in filing the present writ petition. Though the

impugned award is dated 21.08.2017, the writ petition was filed

only on 11.07.2018. Similarly, it was pointed out that the

allegation of the workman was that he was terminated with effect

from 08.08.2013. However, he filed a complaint before the

Labour Office on 04.10.2013 and sent a legal demand notice on

18.11.2013 only. Thereafter, he filed the claim only in the year

2014. No explanation for the delay has been furnished by the

claimant/workman, and that the present proceedings is only an

afterthought. There is no infirmity committed by the trial court

calling for an interference by this Court, goes the argument.

6. Heard both sides and perused the records.

7. As noticed earlier, according to the respondent/

management, the workman had voluntarily resigned, and in

support of the same, they are relying on exhibits WW1/XM2, i.e.,

the resignation letter and WW1/XM3, i.e., a voucher showing

receipt of final dues of ₹ 18,020/- received by the workman. When

the workman was examined as WW1, he admitted his signature on

both the documents. It is true that mere admission of the signature

in the documents would not mean that execution is admitted.

However, the relevant portion of the cross-examination of the

workman examined as WW-1 is relevant, which reads thus:-

"It is correct that I have not mentioned in my demand notice and claim filed before the Conciliation Officer i.e. Ex. WW1/1 and Ex. WW1/4 that the management had taken my signatures on blank papers and vouchers. It is correct that after the filing of documents before the Conciliation Officer, I have changed my stand in the statement of claim filed before this court with respect to obtaining my signatures on blank papers by the management for the first time.

At this stage, photocopy of appointment letter is shown to the witness from court file (the original has been brought by the management today) upon which he admits his signatures at point A and the same is Ex. WW1/XM1. At this stage, original of resignation letter dated 29.02.2012 is shown to the witness( Photocopy has already been filed and original is being filed today) and he is asked, as to whether it bears his signatures to which workman has replied in affirmation. This document is exhibited as Ex. WW1/XM2 and it bears the signatures of the workman at pointA.

At this stage, original of voucher dated 29.02.2012 is shown to the witness ( Photocopy has already been filed and original is being filed today) and he is asked as to whether it bears his signatures to which workman has replied in affirmation. This document is exhibited as Ex. WW1/XM3 and it bears the signatures of the workman at point A."

(Emphasis supplied)

8. The aforesaid testimony of the workman leaves no room

for doubt that the aforesaid documents had been in fact executed

by him. It was then pointed out by the learned counsel for the

workman that the resignation letter is contended to be dated

29.02.2012; however, the respondent/management is seen to have

accepted it on 27.02.2012. This itself would raise suspicions

regarding the document. I am afraid, I will have to disagree with

the argument advanced because, on perusal of the document before

me, I find that the date on which it is accepted is in fact 29.02.2012

and not 27.02.2012 as argued by the learned counsel.

9. Another important aspect that needs to be taken note of is