[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
M/S Punjab Steel Works (Through Its ... vs Shambhu Saran Singh on 11 December, 2025
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 08.12.2025
Judgment pronounced on:11.12.2025
+ W.P.(C) 6264/2019 & CM APPL 26800/2019
M/S PUNJAB STEEL WORKS (THROUGH ITS PARTNER)
.....Petitioner
Through: None.
versus
SHAMBHU SARAN SINGH .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Jitesh Pandey, Mr. Aniket Singh,
Mr. Chandan Singh Bisht and Mr.
Naman Arora, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
JUDGMENT
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
1. The present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India (the Constitution) has been filed by the
respondent/management in LIR No. 2917/2016 on the file of the
Labour Court-XIX, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi aggrieved by the
Award dated 04.12.2018, by which the claim of the
claimant/workman was allowed and reinstatement with 50% back
wages along with continuity of service or in the alternative, lump-
sum compensation of ₹3,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement was
granted.
2. The parties in this writ petition will be referred to as
described in the statement of claim filed before the Labour Court.
3. Brief facts emerging from the records, which are necessary
for the adjudication of the writ are: The claimant was employed
with the respondent/management as "Helper" since 08.07.2010,
drawing wages of ₹7,200/- per month. According to the claimant,
the respondent/management failed to comply with the statutory
obligations like issuance of the appointment letter, attendance card,
wage slips, leave book etc. When he made repeated demand of his
legal facilities, the respondent/management withheld his wages
from September 2012 to November 2012.
3.1. On 26.11.2012, when he insisted for his lawful dues for
the months of September 2012 to November 2012, the
respondent/management terminated his services without
complying with the mandatory conditions of retrenchment laid
down in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the ID
Act). He was neither served with any notice, nor any domestic
inquiry was conducted by the management before terminating him.
Instead, the management refused to allow him to resume his work.
When he took efforts to report back on duty immediately after his
termination, the respondent/management threatened him with dire
consequences.
3.2. The claimant remained unemployed thereafter, despite
earnest efforts to secure alternative employment. A demand notice
dated 14.12.2012 was served on the management demanding
reinstatement with back wages. However, the management did not
respond. Hence, the claim seeking reinstatement with back wages.
4. The respondent/management filed written statement
denying the allegation that the claimant had been employed since
July 2010. According to them, the claimant approached the
management for the very first time on 04.11.2012, seeking a
temporary daily-wage work as "Helper". The claimant/workman
was engaged with its establishment for a very short period of time.
The claimant/workman worked for only a few days between
04.11.2012 and 25.11.2012 and thereafter, he voluntarily absented
himself from his duty from 26.11.2012, without furnishing any
explanation or intimation.
4.1. The claimant never completed 240 days of continuous
service in twelve months preceding the termination. Hence, the
claimant is not entitled to be covered under Section 25-F of the ID
Act. On the strength of the muster roll and an Employees' State
Insurance (ESI) declaration form, it was contended that the
claimant's joining date was 04.11.2012 and not 08.07.2010. The
claimant/workman had never been terminated. On the other hand,
he had abandoned his employment.
5. On completion of pleadings, necessary issues were framed
by the Labour Court. The parties went to trial on the basis of
aforesaid pleadings. The claimant examined himself as WW-1 and
his affidavit in lieu of chief examination has been marked as
Exhibit WW1/A. Exhibits WW1/1 to WW1/6 were also marked.
The respondent/management filed affidavit in lieu of chief
examination of Rajat Manchanda, partner of the management and
produced Exhibit MW-1/1. However, he did not present himself
for cross-examination. The Labour Court, vide order dated
02.11.2018 closed the evidence of the management. Subsequently,
the Labour Court also dismissed the application moved by the
management to set aside the order dated 02.11.2018 vide order
dated 26.11.2018 and proceeded to pass the impugned award dated
04.12.2018.
6. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent/management has
approached this court invoking the writ jurisdiction.
7. There was no representation for the
respondent/management when the matter was taken up for hearing.
However, written submissions have been placed on record. Hence,
the same is being considered. In the written submissions, it is
stated that the claimant's allegation of having been appointed on
08.07.2020 as "Helper" is not supported by any documentary
evidence. The inconsistency in the claimant's testimony has been
pointed out. The contentions in the written statement are reiterated.
The muster rolls, that is referred to as Exhibit MW-1/1 in the
affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination, and the ESI declaration
form marked B are relied on to show that the claimant's date of
appointment is 04.11.2012.
7.1 It is also contended that though several allegations
against the management regarding denial of legal facilities and
improper conduct of the employer etc. have been raised, there are
no materials on record to show that the claimant complained
against the same during the period of his employment from
08.07.2010 to 26.11.2012. On the other hand, the first complaint
was raised by the claimant on 10.12.2012 vide letter Exhibit
WW1/1; and the demand notice issued by the claimant dated
07.03.2013. Exhibit WW1/4, was issued months after the alleged
termination.
7.2. It is also urged that the Labour Court erred in awarding
₹3,00,000/- in lieu of service which was hardly for two years and
four months, even going by the claimant's version.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimant submitted
that the testimony of the workman examined as WW1 has not been
discredited in any way. The oral and documentary evidence
adduced by the claimant/workman proves his case. Therefore, the
onus had shifted to the respondent/management to disprove it.
However, the management, the custodian of the statutory records,
failed to produce any of the same and hence an adverse inference
needs to be drawn. To augment his contention, the learned counsel
would rely on the dictum of Goverdhan vs. Chief Municipal
Officer, MANU/MP/3770/2024.
8.1. It was pointed out that the management failed to produce
any kind of statutory documents including the ESI declaration
form and the muster rolls before the Labour inspector and had
presented the same before the Labour Court for the first time with
an intention to mislead the ongoing proceedings. Reliance was
placed on the dictum in Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar vs. Mohamed
Haji Latif, 1968 SCCOnline SC 63, which holds that
concealment or non-production of relevant evidence permits the
court to draw an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (the Evidence Act), as the deliberate
withholding of material documents justifies the presumption that
such evidence, if produced, would have been unfavourable to that
party. The learned counsel also relied on the dictum in
Sabarkantha District Panchayat vs. SomajiKankaji Damor,
2011 SCC OnLine Guj 1721, in which it has been held that if the
employer fails to produce the relevant employment records in the
initial stage, the Labour Court is justified in drawing an adverse
inference against the employer and holding the termination to be in
violation of Section 25F of the ID Act.
8.2. It was further submitted that the writ petition, merely
seeks reappreciation of the evidence which is impermissible.
Reliance was placed on the dictum in Krishnanand vs. Deputy
Director of Consolidation, MANU/SC0990/2014, wherein the
Apex Court has held that the High Court under Article 226 do not
reappreciate factual findings unless they are perverse or
unsupported by evidence. Similarly, reliance was also placed on
the decision in Shalini Shyam Shetty vs. Rajendra Shankar
Patil, MANU/SC/0508/2010, which affirms that the writ
jurisdiction of the High court is supervisory and not appellate, and
cannot be invoked in order to substitute one possible view with
another. The learned counsel also relied on Samarendra Das vs.
Win Medicare Pvt. Lts., MANU/DE/7710/2025, in which a
Coordinate Bench of this Court reiterated that when the Labour
Court award is challenged, this Court is to examine as to whether
the tribunal acted within the jurisdiction.
9. Heard both sides and perused the records.
10. On a perusal of the records, certain foundational facts
stand settled and undisputed. It is not in dispute that the claimant
worked with management in the month of November 2012. It is
also apparent that the management did not issue any notice
requiring the claimant to resume his duties after 26.11.2012, nor
did it conduct any disciplinary inquiry, nor was there any
compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 25F of the
ID Act. It is further evident that the management has failed to
produce any relevant statutory employment records, including the
muster rolls, wage registers, attendance registers or PF/ESI records
before the Labour Inspector on 19.12.2012, despite being legally
obliged to furnish the same.
11. In the backdrop of the rival submissions advanced, the
principal issue that falls for consideration before this Court is to
ascertain whether the Labour Court's finding that the claimant's
termination was illegal, suffers from any perversity or non-
consideration of material evidence, warranting interference under
Article 226 of the Constitution.
12. Before I proceed, at this stage, it is necessary to recall the
well -settled legal position regarding the burden and onus of proof
in cases alleging illegal termination. The initial burden is upon the
workman/claimant to prove the engagement and the duration of
service. Once, such foundational evidence is laid, the onus shifts to
the employer/management, who being the custodian of all the
statutory documents, has to produce the same.
13. The respondent/management heavily relied upon the ESI
declaration form to establish that the claimant/workman was
appointed only on 04.11.2012. Such a declaration merely reflects
the date on which the employer chose to register the employee
with the ESI authorities, and hence, the same cannot, in isolation,
be treated as a conclusive proof of the commencement of the
employment. Also, it is important to note that the management
failed to produce the documents when it was called upon by the
Labour Inspector, in the initial stage.
14. Further, on behalf of the respondent/management, one
Rajat Manchanda, partner of the management is seen to have filed
affidavit in lieu of chief examination in which he refers to the
muster roll for the period from August 2012 till December 2012 as
Exhibit MW1/1. However, he never offered himself for cross
examination despite opportunity being provided. Hence, the said
document has neither come on record nor has it been proved. Even
assuming for argument sake that the muster roll produced by the
management for the months of November-December 2012, is
taken into consideration, the document still remains insufficient to
discharge the management's statutory burden. The claimant has
asserted that he had been working with the management since
08.07.2010, and once such foundational assertion was made on
oath, it became incumbent on the management to produce the
complete set of muster rolls, wage registers, and attendance
records for the period from 2010 to 2012 in order to rebut the
claimant's assertion. It is also apposite to note that the
management did not adduce any evidence with respect to payment
of the wages to the claimant even for the limited period to which it
admits the claimant had worked in the month of November 2012.
15. The plea of abandonment as raised by the management
has also been established as no evidence has been led by the
respondent/management.
16. Further, the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of
the Constitution is also well settled. This Court does not have the
jurisdiction to sit in appeal over the factual findings of the Labour
Court and cannot reappreciate the evidence, merely because
another view can be taken. Interference is warranted only when the
findings suffer from perversity or is arbitrary or is unsupported by
the evidence. As held in Krishnanand (supra) this Court cannot
substitute its own factual conclusions for those of the tribunal.
Similar view has been adopted in Shalini Shyam Shetty (supra)
that the writ jurisdiction is supervisory and not appellate.
17. In the view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds
no perversity or illegality in the Labour Court's conclusion in the
impugned Award.
18. Accordingly, the writ sans merit is dismissed.
Application(s), if any pending, shall stand closed.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)
DECEMBER 11, 2025/ABP
