Delhi High Court
M/S Chelsea Mills vs 5/Shri Tarkeswar Singh And Anr on 29 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Ohri
Bench: Manoj Kumar Ohri
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 29.05.2025
+ W.P.(C) 7350/2025
M/S CHELSEA MILLS .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ajit Upadhyay and Mr.
Ghanshyam Mishra, Advocates.
versus
SHRI TARKESWAR SINGH AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The present petition has been instituted under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution seeking setting aside of the award dated 05.04.2024 passed by
the learned Industrial Tribunal-1, Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi in the
context of an industrial dispute vide ID No.576/2016, whereby, the claim
filed by the workmen was partly allowed and directed petitioners to pay a
lumpsum compensation of Rs.1 lac per head along with interest of 8% per
annum with effect from date of termination i.e. 29.09.2007 till realization.
2. Before proceeding further, it is deemed apposite to note the relevant
facts in nutshell.
3. The workmen approached the Labour Department, GNCTD and
claimed to be employed with the petitioner, alleging that the management is
running a garment industry involving garment fabrication and export. It was
claimed that the management had various factory units in Delhi where more
than 500 workers were employed. It was claimed that the workers were not
W.P.(C) 7350/2025 Page
of 4
ASWAL
Signing Date:31.05.2025
03:26:14
provided with any appointment letter, provident fund or ESI benefits. The
ESI cards provided to some of the workmen deliberately carried incorrect
joining dates. The conciliation not being fruitful, the following reference
was made to the Tribunal:-
"...Whether the transfer of S/Sh. Tarkeshwar Singh s/o Late Sh.
Babu Ram and 418 others as shown in Annexure A (27-pages)
from Delhi Units to 173-174, Sector-S, IMT, Manesar, Haryana
is legal and/or justified and if not, whether it amounts to lockout
and if so, to what relief the workmen are entitled, including the
wages for the lockout period?..."
4. In the statement of claim, it was further claimed that a complaint
before the Provident Fund Department was filed on which, raid was
conducted at the petitioner's factory premises on 26.09.2007. In the raid, it
was discovered that hundreds of workmen were found working, all of them
were not covered under the PF Act. Within three days of the raid, the
management perturbed by the sequence of events, put up a circular dated
29.09.2007 on the notice board wherein it was stated that the factory
premises located at A-201, WHS, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi-15 were
transferred to 173/174, Sector-5, IMT Manesar, Haryana. It was claimed by
the management that the said relocation was done at the instance of the
buyers. The workmen further claimed that the said transfer was only an
unfair labour practice, carried out illegally to indirectly terminate the
services of the workmen. The relocation to a different State required consent
of the workmen, who were also to be adequately compensated. The new
factory premises were about 60 kilometres away, which would have required
not only extra time but also involve considerable transport expenses.
Apparently, about 419 workmen joined the claim application.
W.P.(C) 7350/2025 Page
of 4
ASWAL
Signing Date:31.05.2025
03:26:14
5. The claim petition was resisted by the management.
6. Before this Court, it was submitted on behalf of the management that
except 17 workmen, the claim of the others were duly settled. It is contended
that on account of relocation, the workmen were adequately compensated by
offering a sum of Rs.150 per month towards special allowance. The said
amount was later revised to Rs.350/- per month.
7. On consideration of facts and the material placed on record, the
learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the issuance of transfer order
by the management appeared to be an exercise carried out to
harass/victimize the workmen knowing well that they would not be able to
join at the new place which, as noted above, was 60 km away from the
previous place of work. The said act was found to be unfair labour practice
as stipulated in Entry No.7 of the Fifth Schedule read with Section 2 (ra),
punishable under Sections 25T and 25U of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Further, the act of management in offering only Rs.150/- or Rs.350/- per
month is not adequate. The learned Tribunal did not find favour with the
prayer for reinstatement and directed a lump sum compensation amount of
Rs.1 lac each to all the workers. The management's contention that the offer
of Rs.150/-, which was later claimed to be revised to Rs.350/- per month
during the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal, was a bonafide
act. By no stretch of imagination offer of Rs.150/- per month (or Rs.350/-
per month as claimed) does not in any manner appear to be justifiable.
Moreover, the management was also found to be acting in violation of the
provisions of the EPF and MPF Act, 1952, wherein an inquiry under Section
7-A was initiated against the management.
W.P.(C) 7350/2025 Page
of 4
ASWAL
Signing Date:31.05.2025
03:26:14
8. In view of the aforementioned backdrop and in view of the fact that
the scope in a writ petition is limited, I find no merit in the petition and the
same is accordingly dismissed. The impugned award passed by the Tribunal
is upheld.
9. No costs.
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
(JUDGE)
MAY 29, 2025/rd
W.P.(C) 7350/2025 Page
of 4
ASWAL
Signing Date:31.05.2025
03:26:14
