[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
M/S Ram Swaroop And Sons vs Shri Riyazuddin And Anr on 20 December, 2025
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 17.12.2025
Judgment pronounced on:20.12.2025
+ W.P.(C) 11204/2017
M/S RAM SWAROOP AND SONS .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Awadhesh Kumar, Adv.
versus
SHRI RIYAZUDDIN AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Satish Kumar Tripathi, Advocate.
+ W.P.(C) 12504/2018
M/S RAM SWAROOP & SONS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Awadhesh Kumar, Adv.
versus
SHRI NARESH KUMAR & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Satish Kumar Tripathi, Advocate.
+ W.P.(C) 12838/2018
M/S RAM SWAROOP AND SONS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Awadhesh Kumar, Adv.
versus
SHRI HARI KISHAN AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Satish Kumar Tripathi, Advocate.
Ms. Urvi Mohan, Advocate for
GNCTD
+ W.P.(C) 12844/2018
M/S RAM SWAROOP AND SONS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Awadhesh Kumar, Adv.
Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 11204/2017 and connected matters Page 1 of 20
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:22.12.2025
12:44:58
versus
SHRI DINESH KUMAR AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Satish Kumar Tripathi, Advocate.
Mr. Anubhav Gupta and Ms. Ishita
Gupta, Panel Counsel for GNCTD.
+ W.P.(C) 12857/2018
M/S RAM SWAROOP AND SONS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Awadhesh Kumar, Adv.
versus
SHRI ISRAR AHMAD AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Satish Kumar Tripathi, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
JUDGMENT
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
1. This present batch of petitions, under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, have been filed by the
petitioner/management against the separate Awards dated
17.08.2017, 18.08.2017 and 19.08.2017 in LIR No. 64/17, LIR No.
361/17, LIR No. 363/17, LIR No. 362/17 and LIR No. 364/17
respectively passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-XXII,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, whereby the termination of five
workmen by the petitioner/management was held to be illegal and
the petitioner was directed to reinstate them with continuity of
service and back wages. Since the petitions are filed by the same
management against the Awards involving identical issues with
only minor variations in the facts, they were heard together and are
being disposed of by this common order.
2. In these petitions, unless otherwise specified, the petitioner
will be referred to as the management, and the workman will be
referred to by their respective names and collectively as workmen,
for convenience.
3. Brief factual matrix, as per the statements of claim filed by
the workmen, is as follows: The workmen, namely Riyazuddin,
Naresh, Hari Kishan, Dinesh, and Israr, joined the services of the
management on 01.01.1992, 05.03.1996, 01.05.1996, 01.01.2000,
and 10.10.1992, respectively, to the posts of turner, fitter, and field
worker, respectively and each of them discharged their duties to
the entire satisfaction of the management. The last drawn salary of
all the aforesaid workmen was ₹8,528/- per month.
3.1. The workmen alleged that the management was not
providing the statutory benefits to them and was not even paying
the minimum wages as fixed by the appropriate government. A
demand notice dated 12.04.2012 was sent to the management. But
there was no response from the management. Thereafter, the
management failed to make payment of wages for the months of
February and March 2012 to the workmen, pursuant to which a
complaint dated 19.04.2012 through their then Union was made to
the Labour Department. The management came to know about the
complaint and terminated the services of the workmen with effect
from 14.05.2012. With respect to the management's failure to pay
the minimum wages to the workmen, a claim was filed before the
appropriate authority, which is presently pending adjudication. The
workmen raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation
Officer, who initiated conciliation proceedings in the matter.
However, due to the non-cooperation of the management, the
conciliation proceedings failed, and consequently, the dispute
bearing LIR No. 2938/2016 was referred to the Labour Court, and
the issue relating to payment of back wages for the period from
14.05.2012 to 20.05.2013 remained pending for adjudication.
During the pendency of the said dispute and pursuant to the
directions of the Labour Court, the management agreed to take the
workmen back in service. Accordingly, the workmen rejoined their
duties with effect from 21.05.2013. Despite reinstatement being
effected as per the directions of the court, the management
victimised the workmen and attempted to compel them to
withdraw the pending industrial dispute unconditionally. When the
workmen refused to withdraw the dispute, the management
threatened them with false implication in police cases in order to
pressurise them.
3.2. The management again stopped paying the wages of the
workmen for the period from May 2013 to July 2013. The
workmen, through the present Union, lodged a complaint before
the Labour Department. The management again threatened the
workmen. However, subsequently sent wages for the said period
by cheque on 10.08.2013. The amount so paid was less than the
applicable minimum wages, and therefore, complaints in this
regard were filed before the Labour Department vide complaint
dated 11.06.2014. Upon receipt of the said complaint, the Labour
Inspector summoned the management for inspection. However, the
management failed to appear on the date fixed. Instead, the
management wanted the workmen to withdraw the complaint.
Since the workmen did not agree to withdraw the complaint, the
management illegally terminated the services of the workmen
concerned with effect from 29.06.2014 without issuing any prior
notice, charge-sheet or conducting any domestic enquiry. No
retrenchment compensation or notice pay was paid to the
workmen, which is a clear violation of Section 25-F of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the ID Act). After their illegal
termination, the workmen repeatedly requested the management to
take them back in service, but the management deliberately failed
and refused to do so. A demand notice dated 08.06.2015 was
served by the workmen. However, the management did not
reinstate them. The workmen thereafter again raised an industrial
dispute before the Conciliation Officer, who initiated conciliation
proceedings in the matter. The earlier industrial dispute is still
pending, and therefore, the termination of the workmen during the
pendency of the said dispute is in clear violation of Section 33 of
the ID Act, having been effected without seeking prior permission
or approval of the Court concerned. The workmen have remained
unemployed since the date of termination.
4. The management opposed all the statements of claim by
filing separate written statements, primarily contending that the
workmen abandoned their duties in August 2013 and that the
services of the workmen have never been terminated by the
management at any point of time. The workmen joined the
management with effect from 21.05.2013 pursuant to the
directions of the Court. After joining duties on 21.05.2013, the
workmen started absenting themselves from the month of August
2013 onwards without obtaining prior permission or sanction of
leave from the management. Since the services of the workmen
were never terminated, the question of payment of retrenchment
compensation does not arise. As the workmen did not complete
240 days of continuous service in the preceding twelve months, the
provisions of Section 25-F of the ID Act are not attracted. The
workmen suppressed material facts relating to their unauthorised
absence from duty while raising the present dispute. The alleged
grievance raised by the workmen did not culminate in an industrial
dispute. The present reference was made by the appropriate
Government without considering the documents on record and
without examining the conduct of the workmen during the
conciliation proceedings. During conciliation proceedings, the
management offered the workmen an opportunity to resume duties
immediately. Despite the said offer, the workmen did not report for
duty. The workmen were paid wages as per the attendance register
maintained by the management and were paid wages not less than
the minimum wages prescribed by the Government of NCT of
Delhi. The workmen filed a claim under the Minimum Wages Act,
1948, before the authority concerned at Pusa, Delhi, which is
pending. The management never threatened the workmen or
compelled them to withdraw any complaint. The management
issued several letters to the workmen calling upon them to resume
duties. The workmen did not comply with the said letters and
failed to resume their duties. The management replied to the
demand notice dated 08.06.2015 vide reply dated 08.07.2015,
advising the workmen to resume their duties. The management has
at all times been ready and willing to take the workmen back on
duty.
4.1. Rejoinders were filed by the workmen stating that the
management had taken false pleas deliberately to defeat the claim
of the workmen. The management had intentionally
misrepresented facts regarding the date of joining and absence.
The burden of proof of gainful employment lies upon the
management, and the management has failed to place any proof of
the workmen's alleged employment. The reference itself reflects
consideration of facts by the appropriate authority.
5. On competition of pleadings, necessary issues were
framed in each reference. In each of the cases, the workman was
examined as WW-1. Exhibits WWl/1 to WWl/7 and Mark W1 to
W5 were marked on their side. The management examined MW-1.
On the management's side, MWl/1 to MWl/4 and MWl/Wl to
MWl/Wl4 were marked. On consideration of the oral and
documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, the Labour
Court found that the termination was effected without enquiry and
without compliance of Section 25-F of the ID Act, and so the same
was illegal and unjustified. As the management failed to prove
gainful employment of the workmen after termination, the court
directed reinstatement of the workmen, continuity of service and
back wages along with consequential benefits. Aggrieved, by the
Awards, the management has filed the writ petitions.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner/management
submitted that the Awards are arbitrary, unreasonable and were
passed without consideration of law or comprehending the correct
facts. The workmen joined the management on 21.05.2013, and
that their wages was as prescribed by the Government. The
workmen have completely failed to prove that they had completed
240 days of continuous service during the preceding 12 months
from the alleged date of their termination, as the onus to prove this
issue was upon them. In support of the argument, reference was
made to the dictum in UCO Bank vs. Presiding Officer 81(1999)
DLT 696, which held that a fact has to be proved by a person who
asserts it. Reliance was also made on the dictums in Municipal
Corporation, Faridabad vs Siri Niwas AIR 2004 SC 4681;
Mahesh Vs. N.D.M.C 2013 LLR 184 and Dharam Pal vs
Management of M/S J. Roy & Bros [W.P.(C) 8933/2009 dated
06.12.2012].
6.1. It was further submitted that the Labour Court failed to
appreciate that the management led cogent evidence by examining
its witness, particularly the wage registers and attendance records
produced through MW-1, which conclusively establishes that the
workmen had joined on 21.05.2013 and did not complete 240 days
before abandoning the service. The workmen, in their cross-
examination, expressly admitted that they joined the management
with effect from 21.05.2013, and that they had not filed any
documentary evidence to prove completion of 240 days or
termination of service.
6.2. Further, another industrial dispute bearing LIR No.
2938/16 between the same parties was already pending before
another Labour Court, which also dealt with the same issue, and so
the Labour Court ought not to have considered the reference in the
cases on hand.
6.3. It was further submitted that the Labour Court exceeded
its jurisdiction by granting relief relating to arrears of wages,
which squarely falls within the ambit of the Delhi Shops and
Establishments Act, 1954 (the DSE Act), in the absence of any
proceedings initiated by the workmen under the said Act.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the workmen submitted
that there is no infirmity in the Awards calling for an interference
by this Court. It was submitted that the management, for the first
time, came with the pleas of unauthorised absence vide reply dated
17.07.2014, which was sent in response to the letter of workmen
dated 24.06.2016, even though there is no whisper of such
averment and plea in the covering letter dated 10.08.2013 by
which the earned wages up to July 2013 was sent. The wage
register has been found to be fake and unreliable because it does
not bear the signature of the workmen.
8. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on
record.
9. At the outset, it needs to be noticed that the scope of
interference by this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India against the Awards passed by the Labour
Court is narrow and must be exercised with restraint. The
jurisdiction of High Courts is supervisory and not appellate. This
Court cannot sit as a court of appeal to re-appreciate the evidence
or to substitute its own view for that of the Labour Court.
Interference is warranted only where the Award suffers from any
perversity, patent illegality or jurisdictional error. (Harjinder
Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, (2010) 3 SCC
192). The Apex Court in Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan,
1963 SCC OnLine SC 24 held that jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution is strictly supervisory, the High Courts cannot
re-appreciate evidence or correct factual errors, and may interfere
only for jurisdictional errors or patent errors of law apparent on the
face of the record.
10. In the present batch of petitions, the primary contention
of the management is that the workmen did not complete 240 days
of continuous service in the twelve months preceding the alleged
date of termination. The joining dates of the workmen are also
disputed. The management contends that they all joined on
21.05.2013 and that the dates given by the workmen have not been
proved in evidence. The management relies on the cross-
examination of the WW-1, which reads as:
"It is correct that I joined the management w.e.f 21.5.2013. It is
correct that I have not filed any documentary evidence to prove
that management terminated my services w.e.f 29.6.2014. It is
correct that I have not filed any documentary evidence to prove
that I have completed 240 days with the management. It is wrong
to suggest that I have not completed 240 days in the preceding
twelve months, with the management. It is wrong to suggest that I
have worked with the management only up to July 2013. It is
correct that I have received a letter dt. 10.8.2013 along with
cheque dt. 10.8.2013 amounting to Rs. 16,335/- from the
management through Union."
(Emphasis Supplied)
11. It is true that the workmen have not produced any
documents to prove their termination by the management. When
this aspect was pointed out by the learned counsel for the
management, to a question put by the Court as to whether
appointment order(s) had been issued while the workmen joined
for duty, was answered in the affirmative. However, the learned
counsel was unable to point out any such document(s) on record. It
is true that the initial burden to prove engagement/employment is
on the workmen. When there are no documents to show
appointment or termination, the workmen cannot be expected to
produce non-existing documents. Therefore, the aforesaid
admissions made by WW-1 does not in any way improve the case
of the management.
12. The attendance registers have been marked as MWl/Wl
to MW1/W12. MW1 admitted that no charge-sheet was issued to
the workmen regarding their unauthorised absence and that there
was no domestic enquiry. There was no notice calling upon the
workmen to resume duties, nor was any retrenchment
compensation or notice pay paid. The letter dated 10.08.2013,
which has been marked as Mark W4, covering the cheque for
payment of wages for the period from May to July 2013, also does
not mention the date of the alleged absence or anything regarding
the abandonment of service. Now, even assuming that the
attendance registers produced by the management is a true
reflection of the attendance of the workmen from 21.05.2012
onwards and that, as shown in the registers, the workmen did not
come to work after July 2013, there is no signature of the workmen
even on the days they were actually present. It is admitted by the
management that the workmen were working from 21.05.2013 to
31.07.2013. However, even on those days, the attendance is not
seen marked. The learned counsel was asked whether it is
mandatory for a worker to mark his attendance on days on which
he reports or duty. The answer was in the affirmative. If that be so,
why does the attendance registers not reflect their attendance even
on those days on which the management admits their presence? No
explanation is forthcoming from the management.
13. The burden lies squarely on the employer to prove that
the workmen abandoned their jobs. Furthermore, no documents
were brought on record to show refusal by the workmen to join
duties. On the other hand, the workmen have produced a series of
complaints dated 18.12.2013 (Ex. WW1/3), 19.03.2014 (Ex.
WW1/5), 27.03.2014 (Ex. WW1/6), 11.06.2014 (Ex. WW1/7) and
24.06.2014 (Ex. Mark W4) made to the labour department
regarding the non-payment of wages by the management. In their
cross-examination, the workmen further stated that they had
complained to labour department for non-payment of wages.
14. The argument that another industrial dispute on the same
issue is pending before another Labour Court is incorrect, as the
said reference pertains to the wages for the period from 14.05.2012
to 20.05.2013, and the case on hand pertains to the wages for the
period from 21.05.2013 to 28.06.2014.
15. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction by granting relief
relating to arrears of wages, on the ground that such relief falls
exclusively within the ambit of the DSE Act is untenable. The
relief granted by the Labour Court is not an independent
adjudication of a wages claim under the DSE Act. The direction to
pay back wages is a consequential relief flowing from the finding
of illegal termination under the ID Act. Once termination is held to
be illegal, the Labour Court is fully empowered under Section 11-
A of the ID Act to grant appropriate relief, including reinstatement
with continuity of service and back wages. In Co-operative Store
Ltd. V. K.S. Khurana 1988 SCC OnLine Del 223, it was held
that the provisions under the DSE Act and the ID Act are meant
for weaker sections of society, and the statutes are not working in
any contradictory fields so as to hold that one legislation would
supersede the other legislation. Similarly, in Delhi Consumers
Coop. Wholesale Stores Ltd. v. Secretary, Labour 1982 SCC
OnLine Del 219, it was held that the DSE Act is complementary
to the ID Act, and parallel statutory remedies do not imply
exclusion. Therefore, the existence of a separate statutory
mechanism for claiming wages under the DSE Act does not oust or
curtail the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to award back wages as
a consequence of illegal termination.
16. The conclusion and reasoning of the Labour Court that
abandonment was not proved, that the workmen were illegally kept
out of service, and that Section 25-F of the ID Act was not
complied with are pure findings of fact, neither perverse nor
unsupported by record. There is no ground calling for interference
by this Court.
17. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.
Application(s), if any pending, shall stand closed.
18. Copy of this judgment be kept in all the connected
matters.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)
DECEMBER 20, 2025/er
