[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Bharat Kumar Gardner (Mali) vs New Delhi Public School 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) 3687/2018
BHARAT KUMAR GARDNER (MALI) .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amit Singh and Ms. Shaily Tarar,
Advocates
Versus
NEW DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate
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 claimant/workman in
D.I.D. 2005/2016 on the file of the Labour Court-X, Dwarka
Courts, Delhi, aggrieved by the order dated 29.11.2017, by which
his claim for reinstatement with back wages was declined.
However, he was granted compensation of ₹1,00,000/- in the place
of reinstatement and back wages.
2. The parties in this writ petition, unless otherwise specified,
will be referred to as described in the statement of claim.
3. In the statement of claim filed on behalf of the
claimant/workman, it is alleged thus:- The workman was working
as a gardener in the School of the respondent/management,
namely, New Delhi Public School, A-Block, Vikas Puri, New
Delhi, since 1998 continuously and without any break. In the year
1998, he was paid a monthly salary of ₹1200/-. After repeated
requests in the year 2002, his salary was raised to ₹2500/- per
month. This was being paid with effect from 2002. For the purpose
of giving him salary, a bank account had been opened and ATM
card was also issued in his name. However, the
respondent/management never gave him the passbook or the ATM
card issued in his name. On the other hand, they continued to pay
him salary in cash. The claimant/workman was aware of the fact
that the provident fund was also being deposited in his name.
However, no information or details regarding the same was given
to him. Though he was working with the respondent/management
from the year 1998 onwards, the benefit of ESI was also not being
given to him, although it was obligatory for the management to do
so.
3.1. In the year 2012, the respondent/management terminated
the claimant/workman from service. Hence, he was constrained to
send a legal notice dated 02.11.2012. After receipt of the notice,
the respondent/management allowed the workman to resume his
duties and enhanced his salary ₹7,000/- per month. The
claimant/workman continued to work honestly and sincerely
without giving any room for complaint. However, in the month of
September 2013, the Chairman of the management and other
guards of the School started creating trouble for the
claimant/workman. He was told that he was no longer required in
service. On 07.10.2013, when the claimant/workman reached the
School, he was not allowed by the guards to enter the premises. He
was not permitted to meet either the Principal or the School
management. On 12.10.2013, when he tried to enter the School, he
was abused and threatened by the management. Hence, he was
constrained to lodge a complaint before the SHO, Vikas Puri
Police Station, New Delhi. Thereafter, he was terminated from
service without any wrongdoing on his part. A legal notice dated
18.11.2013 was sent to the respondent/management. Despite
service of notice, the respondent/management neither replied nor
took him back in service. The termination of the workman is
illegal, arbitrary and unjustified and, therefore, the claim for
directing the respondent-management to reinstate him with full
back wages along with consequential benefits.
4. The respondent/management filed written statement
denying the allegations in the statement of claim. It was contended
that the claimant/workman was not performing his duties as a
gardener. He was regularly late and repeatedly ignored and
disobeyed the directions given by the respondent/management.
Thereafter, on 30.09.2013, he abandoned his job. The allegation
that the claimant/workman had been working as a gardener since
1998 was denied. According to the respondent/management, he
was appointed w.e.f. 01.07.2002 only. The allegations regarding
the denial and refusal of the respondent/management to give him
the benefits to which he was entitled to were also denied. It was
contended that as he had voluntarily left his job, the claim was not
maintainable. It was also contended that before the conciliation
officer, the claimant/workman deliberately did not appear and,
therefore, the conciliation officer had issued a failure report on
07.07.2014. In such circumstances, it was contended that the
statement of claim was liable to be dismissed.
5. On completion of pleadings, necessary issues were raised
by the Labour Court. The parties went to trial on the basis of the
aforesaid pleadings. The workman was examined as WW1 and
Exhibits WW1/1 to WW1/7 were marked on his side. No oral or
documentary evidence was adduced by the
respondent/management.
6. The Labour Court, on consideration of the oral and
documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, passed the
impugned Award. Aggrieved, the present writ petition has been
filed by the claimant/workman.
7. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the
claimant/workman that when the Labour Court found the
termination to be illegal, the prayer for reinstatement ought to have
been granted. The relief for reinstatement can be refused in
circumstances, like, if the establishment is closed. In the case on
hand, the School in which the claimant/workman was working is
still running, and hence, the option for reinstatement was very
much available. The claimant/workman was only 43 years old
when he was terminated. Now, he is just 50 years old and,
therefore, he can be reinstated. According to learned counsel, the
Labour Court erred in not reinstating the claimant/workman and,
therefore, the Award needs to be interfered with to the said extent.
In support of his argument, he relied on the dictum in Deepali
Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya
(D. ED.) & Ors. (2013) 10 SCC 324.
8. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the
respondent-management that the Labour Court was right in
granting compensation in the circumstances of the case. In fact,
after the impugned Award was passed, the compensation awarded
was offered to the claimant/workman. But he refused the same and
filed the present writ. He further submits that there is no infirmity
in the impugned order calling for an interference by this Court.
9. Heard both sides.
10. In Deepali Gundu Surwase (supra), it was held that in
cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with
continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule. The said
rule is subject to the rider that while deciding the issue of back
wages, the adjudicating authority or the Court may take into
consideration the length of service of the employee/workman, the
nature of misconduct, if any, found proved against the
employee/workman, the financial condition of the employer and
similar other factors. The cases in which the competent Court or
Tribunal finds that the employer has acted in gross violation of the
statutory provisions and/or the principles of natural justice or is
guilty of victimizing the employee or workman, then the Court or
Tribunal concerned will be fully justified in directing payment of
full back wages. The Courts must always keep in view that in
cases of wrongful/illegal termination of service, the wrongdoer is
the employer and sufferer is the employee/workman and there is
no justification to give premium to the employer of his
wrongdoings by relieving him of the burden to pay to the
employee/workman his dues in the form of full back wages.
11. On going through the impugned Award, it is seen that
despite sufficient opportunity being granted to the
respondent/management, they never cross-examined the
claimant/workman who offered himself as a witness, WW1. The
respondent/management also did not adduce any evidence to
disprove the case of the claimant/workman. Hence, the Labour
Court was right in holding that claimant/workman succeeded in
proving that the termination was illegal.
12. Now, coming to the question as the reliefs to be granted
in this case. The learned counsel for the workman relying on the
aforesaid decision submitted that this is a fit case in which the
court ought to have granted reinstatement with back wages, as the
workman has specifically pleaded and proved that he was not
gainfully employed after his termination. No contra evidence has
been adduced by the respondent-management, and, therefore, there
was no reason for the Labour Court to have not granted
reinstatement with back wages.
13. On going through the facts and circumstances of the case,
this Court is of the opinion that the Labour Court has exercised its
discretion correctly because even going by the case of the
claimant/workman, he had given police complaints twice against
the respondent-management. According to him, initially, he was
terminated in the year 2012. Thereafter, he sent a legal notice
pursuant to which he was reinstated in service. His subsequent
termination also resulted in a police complaint and notices being
exchanged between the parties. Therefore, the trust and confidence
that is necessary between an employer and employee seems to
have been lost years back. In such circumstances, reinstatement
does not appear to be the proper remedy to be given in the case.
The compensation that has been granted appears quite appropriate
in the circumstances of the case. Hence, I find no infirmity in the
findings of the Labour Court calling for an interference by this
Court.
14. In the result, the writ sans merit is dismissed.
Application(s), if any pending, shall stand closed.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)
DECEMBER 11, 2025
p'ma
