Delhi District Court
Vijay Pal Singh vs M/S G4S India on 25 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. REKHA
PRESIDING OFFICER : LABOUR COURT - 07
ROUSE AVENUE COURTS : NEW DELHI
LIR No. 1005/23
CNR No. DLCT13-003810-2023
Vijay Pal Singh
S/o Late Sh. Uday Singh
R/o 121, Village Solra, Palwal,
Haryana
............ Workman
VERSUS
M/s G4S, Secure Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Senior Vice President,
Regional Office:- C-16, C Block,
Community Centre, Behind Janak Cinema,
Janakpuri, New Delhi.
.......... Management
Date of receiving of Reference : 27.02.2023
Date of passing Award : 25.04.2025
AWAR D
1. Vide Reference No. F.3(58)/22/Ref./wd/Lab/208
dated 15.02.2023, the following Reference was received for
adjudication, from Deputy Labour Commissioner, under Section
10 (1)(c) and 12(5) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with
Notification No. F.1/31/616/Estt./2008/7458 dated 03.03.2009 in
respect of industrial dispute between the Workman and
LIR No. 1005/23 Vijay Pal Singh Vs. M/s G4S India Page 1
Management:
"Whether the services of workmen Sh.
Sanjay Kumar Singh and 08 Others (as
shown in annexure-A) have been terminated
illegally and/or unjustifiably by the
management; and if so, to what relief are
they entitled and what directions are
necessary in this respect?"
2. Notice of aforesaid Reference was issued to the
Workman and after service of said notice, Statement of Claim
was filed by workman. The brief facts in narrow compass,
relevant and necessary for the disposal of the present matter, as
stated in his Statement of Claim, are as follows:
i. That the workman had been in continuous
service of M/s G4S, Secure Solutions (India)
Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred as
management) since 29.01.1997 as a Head
Guard and his last drawn salary was Rs.
14,200/- per month.
ii. That the workman always did his work
with honesty, hard labour and due diligence
and never gave any chance of complaint to
the management and he was never charge
sheeted by the management.
LIR No. 1005/23 Vijay Pal Singh Vs. M/s G4S India Page 2
iii. That the management had taken the
signature of the workman on blank papers
and vouchers and illegally terminated his
services on 17.09.2019 and did not take him
back on duty despite his request.
iv. That the workman had sent a Demand
Notice dated 16.03.2021 to the management
through registered post, thereby demanding
his reinstatement and unpaid dues but the
management did not give any reply.
v. That the workman had filed a complaint
before the Conciliation officer, Karampura,
Delhi but no one from management side
attended the proceedings there.
vi. That the workman was constrained to file
a Statement of Claim before the Conciliation
Officer, Labour Office, Karampura, New
Delhi, but there also, because of the adamant
attitude of the management the conciliation
failed. Hence, the present reference has been
referred to the Court for adjudication.
vii. That the workman is unemployed from
the date of his illegal termination.
LIR No. 1005/23 Vijay Pal Singh Vs. M/s G4S India Page 3
viii. It is prayed by the workman that he is
entitled to be reinstated in service with full
back wages and continuity of his service
along with all consequential benefits arising
therefrom and unpaid dues.
3. DEFENCES:
Notice of Statement of Claim was issued to
Management and Management filed its Written Statement in
which allegations leveled in the statement of claim have been
denied and certain preliminary objections have been taken. In the
Written Statement, the management raised following defences:
i. That the present claim has been filed with
ulterior motives to extort the money from the
management for which he is not entitled.
ii. That workman at the time of joining the
services had agreed to abide by the contract
of the employment and to work in the
interest of the company .
iii. That the workman was working as Head
Guard and he was not performing any
clerical or technical work. He was working
in the supervisory capacity in managerial and
LIR No. 1005/23 Vijay Pal Singh Vs. M/s G4S India Page 4
administrative nature of job and therefore he
does not fall within the purview of the
definition of workman provided under
Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
iv. That the workman was one point contact
between the guards and the clients at the
site / premises where the management had
undertaken to provide security services. The
workman was inter-alia performing the
following duties:
a. One point contact between the
Organization and the Client and
communicating with Client and providing
day to day solutions, on behalf of
Management.
b. Overall role was to communicate
organizational needs.
c. To oversee employees performance.
d. Evaluations of work and conduct of junior
employees working at Site/premises and
approving their leaves.
e. To identify development needs and
manage the reciprocal relationship between
staff and organization.
f. Lastly, in helping to resolve employees and
LIR No. 1005/23 Vijay Pal Singh Vs. M/s G4S India Page 5
client issues and disputes and creating and
managing team schedules.
v. That the workman had never terminated by
the management on 17.09.2019 rather he
himself abstained from duty since
17.09.2019 in unauthorized manner without
any intimation to the management. The
workman was called upon many times to
report for work but he did not report for
work the reasons best known to him. Further,
as the workman himself had left the services,
therefore, he is not entitle to any relief.
vi. That as the services of workman had not
been terminated by the management, hence,
the present claim is nothing but sheer misuse
and abuse of process of law and the same is
liable to be dismissed with cost. Further,
workman is free to report for work available
in Delhi-NCR under the provisions of the
PSARA, 2005 and he will not be entitled for
any wages from 17.9.2019. In case the
workman fails to report for duty, it shall be
presumed that the claimant is not interested
in employment anymore.
LIR No. 1005/23 Vijay Pal Singh Vs. M/s G4S India Page 6
vii. That the workman is not entitled for any
relief for the period 2019 to 2023 and claim
of the workman is liable to be dismissed.
4. It is note here that on 27.03.2024 it was stated by
AR of workman that the workman is denying the allegations
levelled in the written statement and is reiterating the contents of
statement of claim.
5. ISSUES:
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the
following issues were framed:
1. Whether the claimant does not fall
within the definition of 'workman' as
defined U/Sec.2(s) of Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, OPM
2. Whether the services of the workman
Vijay Pal Singh have been terminated
illegally and / or unjustifiably by the
management; and, if so, to what relief is
he entitled and what directions are
necessary in this respect? OPW
3. Relief.
6. WORKMAN EVIDENCE:
In order to prove his case, the workman stepped into
LIR No. 1005/23 Vijay Pal Singh Vs. M/s G4S India Page 7
the witness-box as WW-1. He exhibited his affidavit as
Ex.WW1/A and relied upon the following documents:
Mark A Photocopy of legal notice dated 16.03.2021
sent to the management.
Mark B Photocopy of postal receipt.
Mark C Photocopy of proceedings.
Mark D Photocopy of the salary slip for the month of
May 2018.
Ex.WW1/5 ESI Card
Mark E Working certificate given by the management
to the workman.
Ex.WW1/7 Identity card issued by the management.
Mark F Photocopy of claim filed before Dy. Labour
Commissioner, Karampura, Delhi.
7. RESPONDENT EVIDENCE:
The Management got examined Sh. Ghanshyam
Singh Sisodiya S/o Sh. B.S. Sisodiya as MW-1. He exhibited his
affidavit as Ex.MW1/A. He relied upon Mark-A i.e. Scanned
copy of Letter of Authority.
8. I have heard the arguments and perused the material
available on record.
9. The issue wise findings are as under:-
ISSUE No. 1
1. Whether the claimant does not fall within the definition of
Workman as defined U/sec. 2 (s) of Industrial Disputes Act,LIR No. 1005/23 Vijay Pal Singh Vs. M/s G4S India Page 8
1947? OPM
Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to mention here
that so far as the relationship of employee-employer between the
Workman and Management is concerned, the same has been
categorically admitted by the Management in its Evidence.
The onus to prove this issue was conferred upon the
management/respondent.
In order to discharge its onus, management got examined
Sh. Ghanshyam Singh Sisodiya. He deposed that the claimant had
been working with the management as Head Guard and being
Head Guard, was one point contact between the Guards and the
client at the site/premises where the management had undertaken
to provide security services. The claimant was inter-alia
performing the following duties
(a) one point contact between the Organization and the Client and
communicating with Client and providing day to day solutions, on
behalf of the management
(b) Overall role is to communicate organizational needs
(c) oversee employees’ performance i.e. of Guards working at
Site/Premises, provide guidance, corrections and support
(d) Overall evaluations of work and conduct of junior employees
working at Site/premises and approving their leave
(e) Identify development needs and manage the reciprocal
relationship between staff and Organization and
(f) Helping to resolve employees and client issues and disputes.
Creating and managing team schedules.
LIR No. 1005/23 Vijay Pal Singh Vs. M/s G4S India Page 9
He also deposed that from the above duties it is clear that
the claimant was not performing any clerical, technical nature of
job and was working in supervisory capacity and being the
working in supervisor capacity, the claimant was not a workman
within the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act.
On the other hand, the workman examined himself as
WW1. He deposed that he had joined the management w.e.f.
29.01.1997 at the post of Head Guard and his last drawn wages
were Rs. 14,200/- per month.
Here, it would be relevant to refer to the provisions of
Section 2(s) of the ID Act, which read as under:
2 [(s) “workman” means any person (including an apprentice)employed in
any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled,technical, operational,
clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of
employment be express or implied,and for the purposes of any proceeding
under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such
person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection
with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal,discharge or
retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person
— (i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army
Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or (ii) who is
employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a
prison; or(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative
capacity; or (iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws
wages exceeding 3 [ten thousand rupees] per mensem or exercises, either
by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers
vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.]”
LIR No. 1005/23 Vijay Pal Singh Vs. M/s G4S India Page 10
From the bare perusal of above, it is clear that to squarely
fall within the exception of Sec. 2 (ii) in Clause (s) in sub-clause
(iv), the person must be (a) employed in a supervisory capacity;
(b) draw more than INR 10000 as wages; and (c) primarily
perform the functions of managerial nature.
It is relevant to pen down here that Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi in Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. v. Presiding Officer,Labour
Court, 1975 SCC On Line Del 187 held that the Trial Court
should adopt a positive approach and see whether the particular
employee is a workman and not that whether negatively seen, the
employee falls within the exceptions under Section 2(s). If he does
not fall within the exceptions, then by process of elimination, he is
to be held to be a workman. It was further held that Courts are
required to see that a person is a workman as opposed to what
may be called a ‘non-workman’ and not whether he is a workman
because he is not a Manager or one employed in an administrative
capacity. Following the principles laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Burmah Shell (supra), this Court held asunder:-
“10. In order to make a reference to a Labour Court or a
Tribunal of an industrial dispute the first point that must
engage the attention of the appropriate Government is to
decide whether the complaining employee is a “workman”.
Even if reference is made of a dispute then the Labour Court
or the Tribunal must first apply its mind to this problem for
unless the employee concerned is a workman the question of
adjudication of an industrial disputes does not arise. In my
opinion the approach has to be a positive approach and not a
negative approach. In other words, what has to be seen is
whether the particular employee is a workman and not
whether the employee concerned falls within the exceptions
LIR No. 1005/23 Vijay Pal Singh Vs. M/s G4S India Page 11
mentioned in Section 2(s) and if he does not fall in one of the
exceptions then by process of elimination he is held to be a
“workman”. Asocial legislation like the Industrial Disputes
Act confers certain rights and obligations upon certain
categories of persons. Those rights and obligations must be
limited to be attracted only in the case of such persons as are
covered by the statute. Certain rights are conferred upon a
“workman” as defined by Section 2(s) of the Act. Therefore,
those rights are available only to persons who can be called
workman and not to all those who are not covered by the
exceptions given in Section 2(s). To put in another way what
has to be seen is whether a person is a workman as opposed to
what may be called “non-workman” and not whether he is a
workman because he is not a Manager or one employed in an
administrative capacity. It is possible that an employee in a
given case may not be employed in managerial and
administrative capacity or in supervisory capacity and yet he
may not be a workman. If the approach is that every employee
is a “workman” but the benefits of raising an industrial
dispute is not available to those who are subject to the Army
Act, or the Air Force Act or the Navy (Discipline) Act or who is
employed in the police service or as an officer or other
employee of a prison or who is employed mainly in a
managerial or administrative capacity; or who being employed
in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding five hundred
rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the
duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested
in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature, then, in my
opinion, the approach would be incorrect. The proper
approach in law would be to first see whether an employee is a
workman and then see whether any of the exceptions are
attracted. Reading the definition of the word “workman” I find
that it is necessary that a person must be employed in an
industry to do any skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory,
technical or clerical work for hire or reward. Thus the first
thing to find out is whether the employee concerned is
employed to do manual or clerical work, be it skilled or
unskilled, technical or non-technical. If that be so, then he
would be workman even if he is employed in a supervisory
capacity unless by virtue of being employed, in supervisory
capacity his wages exceed Rs. 500/-or his duties or powers
convert his employment into one mainly of managerial nature.
On the other hand if manual or clerical work is only a small
part of the duties of the person concerned and incidential to
his main work, which is not manual or clerical then such a
LIR No. 1005/23 Vijay Pal Singh Vs. M/s G4S India Page 12
person would not be a workman. In Management of Mayand
Baker (India) Ltd. v. Their workmen and Appellants, A.I.R.
1967 S.C. 678 (3), that court was concerned with construing
Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act as it stood before
the amendment of 1956. The rule laid down was similar to the
one which I have propounded above and I think the rule still
holds good despite the substitution of clause (s) of Section 2 by
the amendment Act, 36 of 1956. In the case of May and Baker,
referred to above the Supreme Court came to the conclusion
that inasmuch as the main work of the employee in that case
was that of canvassing and any clerical or manual work that
he had to do was incidental to his main work of canvassing the
employee could not be regarded as a person falling within the
ambit of the term”workman”. On good authority, therefore, I
hold that the approach has to be positive, as said by me earlier
and not negative to find out whether an employee would fall
within the ambit of the term workman.
A bare perusal of the aforesaid judgments and the definition
of ‘workman’ under Section 2(s) leads to an inevitable conclusion
that an employee would come within the purview of the
definition if he: (i) is employed in any industry; and (ii) performs
any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or
supervisory work.
It is settled law that it is not the nomenclature/designation
but the true nature of duties performed by an employee which is
the determining factor as to whether or not the concerned
employee is a workman under Sec.2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act,
1947.
LIR No. 1005/23 Vijay Pal Singh Vs. M/s G4S India Page 13
It is relevant to pen down here that the Hon’ble High Court
of Delhi in case titled M/S. Dcm Shri Ram Consolidate Ltd. vs
B.K. Gupta & Ors. W.P.(C) 3705/2000 held as under:
22. It is also well settled principle of law that designation
or name of the post is not material while dealing with the
question of person being workman. The main duties the
employee is performing is the criteria to determine
whether he falls within category of workman in the
I.D.Act. It has been so held in number of cases including
S.K.Maini’case (supra) and Hussan Mithu Mhasvadkar’s
case (surpa) on which the workan has relied. In
S.K.Maini’case (supra), the supreme court has held as
under:
“9. After giving our careful consideration to the facts and
circumstances of the case and the submissions made by
the learned counsel for the parties, it appears to us that
whether or not an employee is a workman under Section
2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act is required to be
determined with reference to his principal nature of
duties and functions. Such question is required to be
determined with reference to the facts and circumstances
of the case and materials on record and it is not possible
to lay down any strait-jacket formula which can decide
the dispute as to the real nature of duties and functions
being performed by an employee in all cases. When an
employee is employed to do the types of work enumerated
in the definition of workman under Section 2(s), there is
hardly any difficulty in treating him as a workman under
the appropriate classification but in the complexity of
industrial or commercial organisations quite a large
number of employees are often required to do more than
one kind of work. In such cases, it becomes necessary to
determine under which classification the employee will
fall for the purpose of deciding whether he comes within
the definition of workman or goes out of it.”
23 This question therefore is a question of fact and can be
determined only on the basis of evidences.
It is very very relevant to pen down here that the MW1-
Ghanshyam had not relied upon any document in its evidence to
LIR No. 1005/23 Vijay Pal Singh Vs. M/s G4S India Page 14
prove its defence except scanned copy of the letter of authority
Mark-A.
Further during the cross-examination, MW1-Ghanshyam
Singh Sisodia denied the suggestion that the workman was
working as Guard with the management and was not the Head
Guard. He also stated that the management had not filed any
document to show that the claimant was working as a head guard.
Further, a question was put up to the MW1-Ghanshyam
Singh Sisodiya that whether any power to appoint or terminate
any employee or any other administrative power was given to the
claimant, he replied in negative and voluntarily said that HR
department was doing the work of appointment and termination
of any employee. The job of Head Guard was to instruct and
supervise the guards working under him
From the above cross-examination, it is clear that the
claimant had no power to appoint or terminate the services of the
any employee.
It is well settled law that mere oral statement made by the
parties in the absence of any documentary evidence cannot be
taken to be as a proof of the same.
Further, during the cross-examination, MW1-Ghanshyam
Singh Sisodia stated that the contract of employment was
LIR No. 1005/23 Vijay Pal Singh Vs. M/s G4S India Page 15
issued to the workman but same has not been filed in Court.
Here, it is said that the management should have proved on
record the alleged Contract of Employment to show that the
workman was working in a supervisory capacity as mentioned in
para no. 08 of affidavit Ex. MW1/A but the management chose
otherwise.
Further, during the cross-examination, WW1/workman
denied the suggestion that being the Head Guard, he was working
with the management in supervisory capacity that is why he was
not entitled to file the present case before this Court.
Furthermore, no document has been proved on record by
the management to show that the workman had been working in a
supervisory capacity.
As stated above, an employee will not come within the
definition of Workman if she is (a) employed in a supervisory
capacity; (b) drawing salary more than INR 10000 per month as
wages; and (c) primarily performing the functions of managerial
nature. All these three conditions must be fulfilled simultaneously
to come under exception of workman in which the management
has failed.
In light of above-discussion, here it is said that the
Management has utterly failed to discharge its onus to prove that
the Claimant does not fall within the definition of Workman as
defined U/s 2 (s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Hence, issue no. 1 is decided against the management and
in favour of the Claimant/workman .
LIR No. 1005/23 Vijay Pal Singh Vs. M/s G4S India Page 16
10. ISSUE No. 2
2. Whether the services of workman-Vijay Pal Singh
have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably
by the management; and if so, to what relief is he
entitled and what directions are necessary in this
respect? OPW
The onus to prove issue was conferred upon the workman.
In order to discharge his onus, workman/WW1-Vijay Pal
Singh deposed that he had joined the management on 29.01.1997
as “Head Guard” with last drawn salary was Rs. 14,200/- per
month but the workman had been working as Head Guard.
During his services, he used to perform his duties with honesty
and due diligence and never gave a chance of complaint to the
management. Further, the management took his signature on
blank papers and vouchers etc. and had terminated his services on
17.09.2019 illegally, arbitrary and unjustifiably and also did not
give payment regarding leave and bonus. Thereafter, he visited the
premises of the management many times but all in vain. He sent a
demand letter on 16.03.2021 to the management thereby
demanding his reinstatement and his dues but the management did
not reply the same. He also filed a complaint before the Asst.
Labour Commissioner, Karampura, New Delhi but all in vain. He
also filed his Claim before the Conciliation Officer at Karam Pura,
New Delhi but due to adamant behaviour of the management,
conciliation proceedings were failed.
On the other hand, MW1-Ghanshyam Singh deposed that
LIR No. 1005/23 Vijay Pal Singh Vs. M/s G4S India Page 17
the services of the workman were never been terminated by the
management as alleged but he himself remained unauthorised
absent w.e.f. 17.09.2019 and did not report his duties despite
repeated calling by the management.
So far as the abandonment of job is concerned, it means
voluntary and absolute relinquishment of job. The failure to
perform duties must be with actual or imputed intention, on the
part of the employee to abandon and relinquish the job.
Temporary absence is not ordinarily sufficient to constitute an
abandonment of office. In Buckingham Co. Vs. Venkatiah & Ors .
(1964) 4 SCR 265 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that
under common law an inference that an employee has abandoned
or relinquished service is not easily drawn unless from the length
of absence and from other surrounding circumstances an inference
to that effect can be legitimately drawn and it can be assumed that
the employee intended to abandon service. Abandonment or
relinquishment of service is always a question of intention, and
normally, such an intention cannot be attributed to an employee
without adequate evidence in that behalf. Thus, whether there has
been a voluntary abandonment of service or not is a question of
fact which has to be determined in the light of the surrounding
circumstances of each case.
It is relevant to pen down here that during the cross-
examination, WW1/workman denied the suggestion that his
services were never terminated by the management and he
remained absent from his duties unauthorizedly from 17.09.2019.
LIR No. 1005/23 Vijay Pal Singh Vs. M/s G4S India Page 18
Now even if it is presumed for the sake of arguments that
the Workman himself had stopped coming to the office, then it
was the duty of the Management to ask him to join duty because
it is settled law that if a workman fails to report for duty, the
Management is bound to call upon him to join duty. It has been
held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in M/s. Fateh Chand Vs.
Presiding Officer, Labour Court & Anr., 2012(3) SCT 724 as
follows:
“It is also no more res integra that even in a
case of unauthorized absenteeism or to
prove abandonment of service on the part of
the workman the management must place on
record necessary material to prove that
enough efforts were made by it to call upon
the workman to resume back his duty and
the workman has shown his clear reluctance
for the same.”
It is worthy to note here that MW1-Ghanshyam Singh
Sisodia deposed that the claimant was called upon to come and
report for work many times but despite the same, he did not report
for work.
Further, during the crosse-examination, MW1-Ghanshyam
Singh Sisodia stated that the management has not sent any letter is
writing to the claimant to report for work after 17.09.2019 and
voluntarily said that he was verbally asked to join. He denied the
suggestion that the management had not sent any letter to call the
workman on duty because the management had terminated the
services.
LIR No. 1005/23 Vijay Pal Singh Vs. M/s G4S India Page 19
From the above admission, it is crystal clear that the
management did not sent any letter of absenteeism to the
workman.
Furthermore, WW1/workman denied the suggestion that he
did not join on duties despite calling by the management.
It is also worthwhile to mention here that nothing came on
record which shows that the management verbally or
telephonically asked the workman to resume his duty with the
management.
It has been held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Municipal
Corporation of Delhi Vs. Sukhvir Singh & Ors., 53 (1994) DLT 821
that when the employment of the Workman is not for a specific
period, then the denial of employment to him by the
employer/management shall have to be only according to law and if the
Workman has abandoned the employment, certainly that could have been a
ground for holding an enquiry against him and passing appropriate order.
It has been held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Fateh
Chand‘s case (supra) as follows:
“It is also a settled legal position that
abandonment of service is different from
absenteeism. Abandonment of service is the
voluntarily relinquishment of one’s services
with the intention not to resume the same. It
is a matter of inference to be drawn from the
facts and circumstances of each case and
mere absenteeism for a continuous period
does not mean that the employee has
abandoned his service. The management has
to bring on record sufficient material to show
that the employee has abandoned the service
and abandonment cannot be attributed to the
employee without there being sufficientLIR No. 1005/23 Vijay Pal Singh Vs. M/s G4S India Page 20
evidence. On the failure to report for duty,
the management has to call upon the
employee and if he refuses to report, then an
enquiry is required to be ordered against him
and accordingly action taken. In the absence
of anything placed on record by the
petitioner management, no presumption
against the respondent can be drawn.”
In the present case, it is not the case of the management
that the workman was charge-sheeted or any domestic Enquiry
was held as per law against the workman after alleged
abandonment of the job and nothing has been mentioned
regarding the Domestic Enquiry or charge-sheet against the
workman in evidence filed on behalf of the management. Further
no document has been proved on record by the management that
any Domestic Enquiry was held or any charge-sheet was framed
against the workman. Furthermore, no attendance register was
produced. The management also failed to produce any resignation
letter of the workman. Further, nothing has been proved on record
which suggests that the workman amicably left the job at his own
will.
At this juncture, the reference may be made to the
definition of retrenchment as contained in Section 2 (oo) of
Industrial Disputes Act which reads as follows:
(oo) ” retrenchment means the 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–
(a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or
LIR No. 1005/23 Vijay Pal Singh Vs. M/s G4S India Page 21
(b) retirement of the workman on reaching
the age of superannuation if the contract of
employment between the employer and the
workman concerned contains a stipulation in
that behalf; or(bb) termination of the service of the
workman as a result of the non- renewal of
the contract of employment between the
employer and the workman concerned on its
expiry or of such contract being terminated
under a stipulation in that behalf contained
therein; or] (c) termination of the service of a
workman on the ground of continued ill-
health;]
11. Clearly, retrenchment means termination for any reason
whatsoever. The present case does not fall within the exceptions
contained in the said provision. Therefore, I am of the view that
this is a case of retrenchment and the management was bound to
comply with the provisions of Section 25F and Section 25G of
ID Act which read as follows:
25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of
workmen.- No workman employed in any
industry who has been in continuous service
for not less than one year under an employer
shall be retrenched by that employer until-
(a) the workman has been given one
month’ s notice in writing indicating the
reasons for retrenchment and the period of
notice has expired, or the workman has been
paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the
period of the notice;
(b) the workman has been paid, at the
time of retrenchment, compensation which
shall be equivalent to fifteen days’ average
pay [for every completed year of continuousLIR No. 1005/23 Vijay Pal Singh Vs. M/s G4S India Page 22
service] or any part thereof in excess of six
months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served
on the appropriate Government [or such
authority as may be specified by the
appropriate Government by notification in
the Official Gazette].
25G.Procedure for retrenchment.–Where
any workman in an industrial establishment,
who is a citizen of India, is to be retrenched
and he belongs to a particular category of
workmen in that establishment, in the
absence of any agreement between the
employer and the workman in this behalf, the
employer shall ordinarily retrench the
workman who was the last person to be
employed in that category, unless for reasons
to be recorded the employer retrenches any
other workman.
Nothing came on record which suggests that the
management has given any notice to workman prior to his
retrenchment. Further, the management has not relied upon any
such notice. Furthermore, it is not the case of the management
that the management has conducted any domestic enquiry against
the alleged absenteeism/abandonment of the services by the
workman. Thus, it amounts to illegal termination of his services
of the workman. Since the Management had neither issued any
prior notice to the Workman nor given any notice pay or
retrenchment compensation to him nor given any notice in
accordance with Sec.25-F(c) of Industrial Disputes Act to the
appropriate government, therefore, it is held that the workman
LIR No. 1005/23 Vijay Pal Singh Vs. M/s G4S India Page 23
did not abandon the job himself and termination of his services
by the Management was illegal.
Hence, issue No. 2 is decided in favour of the workman
and against the management.
12. RELIEF:
The Workman has prayed for his reinstatement with full
back wages and continuity of service with all consequential
benefits.
It is worthwhile to mention here that there is no dispute
regarding date of joining and salary as the workman has claimed
in his Statement of Claim that he joined the management on
29.01.1997 and his last drawn wages were Rs. 14,200/- per
month. In response of the same, it is stated in the Statement of
claim that the date of appointment and last drawn wages are
matter of record.
Now coming to the reinstatement of workman with full
back wages.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in case-law titled as
Jasmer Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2015(4) SCC 458 as
follows:
“The workman has worked for more than 240 days in
a calendar year and termination order is void ab
initio in law for non-compliance of Sections 25F
(clauses (a) and (b)), 25G and 25H of the Act,LIR No. 1005/23 Vijay Pal Singh Vs. M/s G4S India Page 24
therefore, the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
has rightly set aside the order of termination of
services of the workman and awarded the order of
reinstatement with continuity of service and full
back wages. The said relief in favour of the
appellant-workman, particularly the full back
wages is supported by the legal principles laid
down by this Court in the case of Deepali Gundu
Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya
(D. ED.) & Ors., 2013(4) S.C.T. 716 : (2013) 10 SCC
324, wherein the Division Bench of this Court to
which one of us was a member, after considering
three-Judge Bench decision, has held that if the
order of termination is void ab initio, the workman
is entitled to full back wages.”
It has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Tin
Works (P) Ltd. Vs. Employees of M/s Hindustan Tin Works Pvt.
Ltd. & Ors., (1979) 2 SCC 80 that full back wages would be the
normal rule and the party objecting to it must establish the
circumstances necessitating departure. It has been further held in
the said case by Hon’ble Apex Court as follows:
“When it was held that the termination of services was
neither proper nor justified, it would not only show that the
workmen were always willing to serve but if they rendered
service they would legitimately be entitled to the wages for
the same. If the workmen were always ready to work but
they were kept away therefrom on account of an invalid act
of the employer, there is no justification for not awarding
them full back wages which were very legitimately due to
them.”
It is pertinent to mention here that in the landmark
judgment titled as Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior
Adhyapak & Ors., 2013(10) SCC 324, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held that in cases of wrongful termination of service,
LIR No. 1005/23 Vijay Pal Singh Vs. M/s G4S India Page 25
reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the
normal rule. Following the judgment of Deepali Gundu
Surwase (sapra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has again held in
Jayantibhai Raojibhai Patel Vs. Municipal Council,
Narkhed, 2019(17) SCC 184 that denial of back wages to
employee, who has suffered due to illegal act of employer would
amount to indirectly punishing employee concerned and rewarding
employer by relieving him of obligation to pay back wages
including emolument.
The Hon’ble Apex Court has held in this regard in Deepali
Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak & Ors.,
2013(10) SCC 324 as follows:
“The very idea of restoring an employee to the position
which he held before dismissal or removal or termination
of service implies that the employee will be put in the
same position in which he would have been but for the
illegal action taken by the employer. The injury suffered by
a person, who is dismissed or removed or is otherwise
terminated from service cannot easily be measured in
terms of money. With the passing of an order which has
the effect of severing the employer employee relationship,
the latter’s source of income gets dried up. Not only the
concerned employee, but his entire family suffers grave
adversities. They are deprived of the source of
sustenance. The children are deprived of nutritious food
and all opportunities of education and advancement in
life. At times, the family has to borrow from the relatives
and other acquaintance to avoid starvation. These
sufferings continue till the competent adjudicatory forum
decides on the legality of the action taken by the
employer. The reinstatement of such an employee, which
is preceded by a finding of the competent judicial/quasi-
judicial body or Court that the action taken by the
employer is ultra vires the relevant statutory provisions orLIR No. 1005/23 Vijay Pal Singh Vs. M/s G4S India Page 26
the principles of natural justice, entitles the employee to
claim full back wages. If the employer wants to deny back
wages to the employee or contest his entitlement to get
consequential benefits, then it is for him/her to
specifically plead and prove that during the intervening
period the employee was gainfully employed and was
getting the same emoluments. Denial of back wages to an
employee, who has suffered due to an illegal act of the
employer would amount to indirectly punishing the
concerned employee and rewarding the employer by
relieving him of the obligation to pay back wages
including the emoluments.”
(underlining added)
It has also been held in Deepali Gundu‘s case (supra),
“Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are
terminated and who is desirous of getting back wages is
required to either plead or at least make a statement
before the adjudicating authority or the Court of first
instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or was
employed on lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid
payment of full back wages, then it has to plead and also
lead cogent evidence to prove that the
employee/workman was gainfully employed and was
getting wages equal to the wages he/she was drawing
prior to the termination of service. This is so because it is
settled law that the burden of proof of the existence of a
particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive
averments about its existence. It is always easier to prove
a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore,
once the employee shows that he was not employed, the
onus lies on the employer to specifically plead and prove
that the employee was gainfully employed and was
getting the same or substantially similar emoluments.”
(underlining added)
13. In the present case, the workman deposed that since the
date of his termination, he is unemployed. Further, during the
cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he was not
LIR No. 1005/23 Vijay Pal Singh Vs. M/s G4S India Page 27
interested in working with the management and that is why he did
not join duty despite calling by the management several times.
Thus, the onus had shifted to the Management to prove the
contrary. Ld. AR of the management did not put up a single
question to the workman during his cross-examination regarding
employment of the workman. The Management was required to
lead cogent evidence of gainful employment of the Workman
during the interregnum period. But the Management has failed to
do so.
Thus, there is no evidence from the side of Management
regarding gainful employment of the Workman, whereas nothing
came from the cross-examination of the workman that he was
gainfully employed somewhere else. Hence, it is clear that the
Management has failed to prove that the Workman was gainfully
employed after illegal termination of his employment.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepali Gundu‘s case
(supra) has held that the Courts must always keep in view that in
the 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.
14. Hence, in view of the aforesaid discussion/analysis and the
law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Statement of
LIR No. 1005/23 Vijay Pal Singh Vs. M/s G4S India Page 28
Claim as filed by the Workman is allowed and the Management is
directed to reinstate the Workman in service with continuity of
service and full back wages along with all other consequential
benefits.
15. Award is passed accordingly. Reference stands answered in
aforesaid terms. Copy of this Award be sent to Labour
Commissioner for publication.
File be consigned to the Record Room after due
Digitally signed
compliance. by REKHA
REKHA Date:
2025.04.25
17:03:22
+0530Dictated in the open Court (REKHA)
th
on 25 April 2025 Presiding Officer Labour Court – 07
Rouse Avenue District Court, New DelhiLIR No. 1005/23 Vijay Pal Singh Vs. M/s G4S India Page 29