[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Development Commissioner & Anr vs Bhup 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) 3013/2007, CM APPL 27131/2021 & CM APPL 27130/2021
DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER & ANR .....Petitioners
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing
Counsel (GNCTD) with Mr. Nitesh
Kumar Singh, Ms. Aliza Alam and
Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Advocates.
Versus
BHUP SINGH .....Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
JUDGMENT
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India has been filed by the management in ID No.
94/2003 on the file of the Court of Presiding Officer, Industrial
Tribunal II, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (the Tribunal), aggrieved
by the Award dated 10.11.2006, by which the termination of the
workman, namely, Bhup Singh, was held to be illegal and
unjustified and so, the management has been directed to reinstate
and regularise him in the pay scale in respect of his post, giving
him consequential benefits of regularisation from the date of his
termination, that is, on 01.08.1987.
2. In this writ petition, the parties will be referred to as
described in the statement of claim filed before the Industrial
Tribunal.
3. In the statement of claim filed by the workman, it is
alleged thus: the workman was initially employed as Mali in the
year 1979 and was posted at Dhasa Drain, Rawta, 8 No. Nullah,
Najafgarh, Delhi. The workman had been performing his duties
duly and faithfully. He had been working continuously from the
date of his appointment. His service was terminated with effect
from 01.08.1987 on the ground that he indulged in illicit felling
and selling of trees at Dhasa Drain, Rawta, 8 No. Nullah,
Najafgarh, Delhi. No inquiry was conducted and no charge sheet
was served on him before he was terminated. At the time of
termination of his service, the management did not offer one
month's notice or notice pay, compensation, etc., as provided
under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act).
3.1 It was alleged that two of his colleagues, namely, Suresh
and Ram Dhan, were also terminated on the same grounds.
However, both of them were reinstated by Labour Court No. 8, and
the same was dealt with in ID No. 427/1991. The workman herein
did not raise a dispute, though all along he had approached the
management from time to time at different levels for reinstatement
of his service. But the management refused to reinstate him in
service. Due to his ignorance of law, the workman did not raise
any industrial dispute or file writ petition before the appropriate
forum.
3.2 At the time of his engagement, he was paid only
minimum wages, fixed for unskilled workmen from time to time.
At the time of his termination, all the daily wagers were being
granted equal pay for equal work with effect from 01.10.1988,
including DA, HRA, interim relief, CCA, etc. Several workers,
junior to the workman, were also regularised with effect from
01.03.1991 in the time scale by the management. However, the
workman was never reinstated in service. As his termination was
without holding an inquiry and without following the procedure
prescribed under Section 25F(a)(b) of the ID Act, it is illegal and
unjustified.
3.3 The Managing Committee of DDH Mazdoor Union, in
its meeting held on 01.01.2002, resolved to raise an industrial
dispute in respect of the workman relating to his wrongful and
illegal termination from service. The Managing Committee also
granted espousal to Shri B.K. Prasad, President of DD Mazdoor
Union, to file the claim. Thus, it was prayed that the workman be
reinstated with effect from 01.08.1987 with full back wages and
continuity of service with all consequential benefits; regularisation
of service as Mali in the appropriate pay scale with effect from
01.03.1991, that is, the date on which the services of his junior
colleagues were regularised in the time scale and for consequential
reliefs.
4. The management filed their written statement contending
that the claim was not maintainable as the workman was a daily
wage casual labourer, and had never worked as Mali with the
management. His services were terminated by the management as
he was found to have indulged in illicit felling and selling of trees.
An inquiry was conducted, in which it was found that the workman
did indulge in illicit felling and selling of trees, which conduct was
against the Service and Conduct Rules and hence, with effect from
01.08.1987, his service was terminated.
4.1. The statement of claim is also not maintainable as it is
barred by the limitation since it was filed after a lapse of more than
14 ½ years after the termination. The workman had neither
challenged nor filed any appeal against his termination. The
statement of claim is merely an afterthought and as such, liable to
be dismissed.
5. On completion of pleadings, necessary issues were raised
by the Tribunal. The parties went to trial on the basis of the
aforesaid pleadings. The workman examined himself as WW1 and
the President of the Delhi Development Horticulture Mazdoor
Union as WW2. Exhibits WW2/1 and WW2/2 were marked on
the side of the workman. On behalf of the management, MW1 was
examined.
6. The Tribunal, on consideration of the oral and
documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, passed the
impugned Award. Aggrieved, the management has challenged the
Award in this writ petition.
7. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the
management that the Tribunal should not have entertained the
claim under any circumstance, as the same was raised after a lapse
of more than 14 ½ years and hence barred by limitation. The
Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in entertaining the reference and
statement of claim, wherein the termination on the basis of
misconduct had not been challenged for more than 14 years. The
workman was well aware of his rights and remedies, yet he chose
not to approach the competent authority or the court for redressal
of his grievance, as he was never aggrieved by his termination on
the grounds of misconduct. The Tribunal failed to take note of the
fact that the workman had not produced even a single
representation against his termination. He was well aware that his
colleagues had challenged their termination on similar grounds.
However, he chose not to join his colleagues or approach the Court
individually. The termination order of the workman stood
confirmed, and hence, he could not have challenged it after more
than 14 years. The Tribunal has erred in applying the law of
retrenchment to the present case. The present case is one of
termination of the workman on the ground of misconduct. As such,
the whole Award is bad in law and hence is liable to be quashed.
8. On going through the earlier orders, I find that vide order
dated 15.12.2010, the matter had been listed in the "regular list".
The petition thereafter came up for hearing on 20.10.2015, on
which date none appeared for the parties. On the next date of
hearing, i.e., on 02.11.2015 also, there was no representation and
hence the writ petition was dismissed for default and non-
prosecution.
9. On 12.08.2021, CM APPL. 27130/2021, under Section
151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was filed for restoration
of the writ petition along with CM APPL. 27130/2021 under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of delay of
four years and three months (1650 days), by the management. This
aspect was never brought to the notice of the Court when the
matter came up for hearing. It is only thereafter it has been brought
to my notice of the pendency of the aforesaid applications.
10. In the applications, it is alleged that in April 2012, a
massive fire broke out in Vikas Bhawan, where the office of the
management was located. In the incident, the file relating to the
present case was completely lost. Due to the absence of records,
the management was unable to ascertain the status or pendency of
the writ petition. The officials who were originally dealing with
this petition had either retired or been transferred long before, and
the officers subsequently posted were not aware of the case. A
notice was received from the office of the Labour Commissioner
dated 12.03.2018, stating that the workman had filed a petition
through the Union on 29.08.2017 and 27.02.2018 claiming the
benefit of the Award under Section 33-C (1) of the ID Act. The
letter of the workman to the Labour Commissioner and the letter of
the Labour Commissioner to the management referred to the
impugned Award dated 31.05.2017 in I.D No. 94/2003 and that an
amount of ₹34,68,692/- was due and recoverable. The
management was unable to trace the Award. The management
became aware of the actual position on 06.12.2019 only, when
they received an advance copy of W.P.(C) No. 12928/2019 filed
relating to recovery of the amount, through the Government
Counsel.
10.1. When the management contacted the then Government
Counsel, who was handling the present petition informed them, by
way of letter dated 06.02.2020, that he had resigned from the
GNCTD panel sometime in 2010-2011 and had handed over the
pending case files to the then Standing Counsel. Immediately
thereafter, the application for restoration of the petition, along with
the application for condonation of delay, was filed by which time
COVID set in and lockdown was imposed. Though the
applications were e-filed on 22.05.2020 with reference No.
1590134073773/45090 and an advance copy sent to the counsel
for the workman, the status of the application could not be
found/traced as the system of filing applications through e-filing
had changed. The management was therefore constrained to re-file
the applications.
11. In the reply to the applications for restoration and
condonation of delay, it is contended that the delay is not 1650
days but much more. The writ petition was dismissed on
02.11.2015. The restoration application was filed on 16.08.2021
only and so, there is a delay of 5 years, 9 months, 14 days (2084
days). The allegation that the management was unaware of the
Award is incorrect. On 16.06.2017, the workman filed an
application specifically referring to the Award dated 10.11.2006
and seeking its implementation. The workman further filed
applications under 33C(1)of the ID Act on 29.08.2017 and
27.02.2018. On 09.12.2019, the management's counsel appeared
before this Court in WP(C) 12928/2019. However, the present
applications are filed much thereafter. As no cogent reasons have
been shown, the applications are liable to be dismissed, contends
the workman.
12. There was no representation for the workman when the
matter was taken up for final hearing. Heard the learned counsel
for the management. As the pendency of the applications for
restoration of the writ petition and the application for condonation
of delay were not noticed or brought to the notice of this Court,
arguments were heard only on the merits of the writ petition.
13. The allegation that in the year 2012, a fire had broken out
in the office of the management resulting in loss of the file is not
seen disputed. There seems to be change in the Standing Counsel
also. Added to all this came the COVID lockdown. It is also
alleged that the officers dealing with the case had retired or were
transferred. All these factors seem to have caused the delay. It is
true that the officials concerned were not vigilant enough. In this
case, it needs to be noticed that the workman had also moved the
Court quite belatedly. However, the claim was not dismissed on
the ground of delay. Therefore, the same yardstick can be applied
to the management also. As substantial rights of the parties are
involved, the ends of justice require that the matter be decided on
merits. Hence, the delay is condoned and the application for
restoring the writ petition to file is allowed and I proceed to
consider the case on merits.
14. The specific case of the workman/claimant is that he was
terminated with effect from 01.08.1987. According to the
management, the workman was terminated as he was found to
have indulged in illicit felling and selling of trees. The
management also contended that an inquiry had been conducted,
and that in the inquiry, it was revealed that the workman had, in
fact, illegally felled and sold trees. The inquiry report has been
marked as MW1/1. The said report contains the statement of
witnesses and the contractor who cut the trees at the behest of the
workman and two of his other colleagues. The contractor is also
seen to have paid fine for the same. Pursuant to the said report
dated 26.06.1987, the workman was terminated with effect from
01.08.1987.
15. Section 2(oo) of the ID Act defines "retrenchment" as
termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any
reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by
way of disciplinary action, but does not include the circumstances
referred to in Clauses (a) to (bb). Going by the case of the
management, it is a case of termination as the misconduct of the
workman was proved in the inquiry conducted. If that be so,
Section 25F of the ID Act would not apply because the said
provision is applicable only in the case of retrenchment and not
termination. But if the termination of an employee is based on no
inquiry, without charges and not by way of punishment, then it
becomes a case of illegal retrenchment, and in such cases, the
workman would be entitled to reinstatement with full back wages
(Sachiv, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sanawad v. Mahendra
Kumar & Anr. 2003 SCC OnLine MP 720). The Apex Court in
the dictum of Mohan Lal v. Management of Bharat Electronics
Ltd., (1981) 3 SCC 225 held that non-compliance with Section
25F of the ID Act renders the termination ab initio void, meaning
that the workman is deemed to continue in service with all
consequential benefits. Reinstatement with full back wages is the
natural consequence of an invalid retrenchment.
16. Here, the management relies on Exhibit MW1/1, the
inquiry report. However, as noticed by the Tribunal, no charge-
sheet is seen given to the workman. No notice or opportunity to
contest the allegation is seen given to the workman. Therefore, the
principles of natural justice are not seen complied with. Hence, it
is a case of illegal retrenchment, and therefore, the arguments
advanced that it is a case of termination and not retrenchment
cannot hold good.
17. Now, the question is, in the facts and circumstances of
the case, was reinstatement with back wages and the relief of
regularisation the appropriate relief to be granted in favour of the
workman?
18. Admittedly, the workman was terminated with effect
from 01.08.1987. However, the statement of claim is seen filed in
the year 2003, that is, after expiry of more than 16 years. It has
come out from the materials on record that two colleagues of the
workman had also been terminated on similar grounds. But they
challenged the termination before the Labour Court. Pursuant to
the same, they were reinstated with back wages and also granted
regularisation. It is not made clear in the statement of claim as to
why the claimant/workman herein never challenged his order of
dismissal, and also did not approach the authorities concerned or
the Court/Tribunal, even when his colleagues had done so. The
workman's case of repeated representations to the management is
not supported by any material(s) on record. Therefore, there is an
inordinate delay in moving the claim for which no reasons
whatsoever have been furnished. However, no provision of law
was cited for this Court to conclude that the claim was barred by
limitation. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in not dismissing the
claim on the ground of delay alone.
19. Now coming to the reliefs granted. As noticed earlier, the
Tribunal directed reinstatement as well as regularisation. It is true
that back wages have not been ordered. The workman has no case
that he remained unemployed all along, which would have been
unlikely and improbable also. As the claim is seen filed after more
than 16 years for which no reasons are furnished, reinstatement
along with regularisation does not appear to be just or reasonable.
But as the termination is seen to be illegal, award of compensation
seems appropriate.
20. In light of the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned
Award is modified, and the workman is held entitled to
compensation of ₹1,00,000/- to be paid by the management within
a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment. If the amount is not paid within the said period of three
months, management would be liable to pay interest at the rate of
6% per annum from the date of default till the date of payment.
21. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed
of. Application(s), if any pending, shall stand closed.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)
DECEMBER 11, 2025
p'ma
