M/S SHINE TRAVELS AND CARGO PVT LTD v. SH.BAJRANGI PRASAD & ANR

1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the award dated 17.02.2023 (hereinafter, ‘impugned award’) passed by the Ld. Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi in LIR No. 7495/2016.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the respondent No.1 workman before the Labour Court was that he was initially appointed by the petitioner management as a Fieldman on 28.11.1995 at the monthly wage of Rs. 3250/-, and from 28.11.1995 to 31.03.1998, he was paid salary through vouchers. The workman was subsequently extended ESI and PF benefits from 01.04.1998 onwards, after which he started receiving salary on the salary register. It was further alleged his services were terminated on 06.02.2015, and that the management did not release his salary from 01.12.2014 to 05.02.2015. A complaint was filed before the Assistant Labour Commissioner on 11.02.2015 pertaining to the aforementioned issue, however, the dispute remained unresolved. The workman further sent demand notices dated 18.03.2015 & 25.06.2015, to which the management neither responded nor provided any acknowledgement, leading to the initiation of proceedings before the Labour Court. Vide the impugned award, the petitioner/Management was directed to pay a lumpsum compensation of Rs.2,60,000/- to the workman/respondent No.1, along with the interest at 9% p.a. from the date of the award till the realization of the said amount.

3. Vide order dated 02.02.2024 in CM APPL. 1211/2024, the execution proceedings initiated by respondent No.1 before the Joint Labour Commissioner, New Delhi, GNCTD were stayed, subject to the petitioner depositing the award amount with the Registrar General of this Court.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner challenges the impugned award primarily on the ground that the workman was not terminated from his services, but instead, voluntarily absented himself from duty w.e.f. 07.02.2015. It is submitted that the petitioner sent a letter dated 12.02.2015 to the workman, stating therein that he was illegally absent without any prior information or sanctioned leave. Vide the said letter, the workman was called upon to report to duty within 48 hours of receiving it and also furnish explanation for his absence. It is further contended that the workman has refused to receive the aforementioned letter and proceeded to file a claim before the Assistant Labour Commissioner.

5. The fulcrum of petitioner’s stand that it is not a case of termination of services but absenteeism is a letter issued by it asking the respondent to report back on duty. In this context, learned Labour Court observed that the management miserably failed to prove service of the said letter dated 12.02.2015 (Ex.MW-1/4) upon the workman. Mr. V.K. Mehta, who was examined as MW[1] on behalf of the management, claimed that the aforesaid letter was sent to the house of the workman by some official of the management; however, there is no record of receipt of the same. Furthermore, MW[1] failed to disclose the name of the official who has allegedly served the said letter, nor has the said official been examined. On the contrary, the workman, during his cross-examination, has categorically denied receiving any such letter. It is also observed that the management chose not to respond to the two demand notices of the respondent No.1 dated 18.03.2015 and 25.06.2015, despite receipt. On the other hand, the management failed to send any notice to respondent No.1 before termination. Accordingly, there is no merit in the contention of the petitioner that the workman remained absent from duties on his own without cause and further failed to resume duty despite issuance of the aforesaid letter. Therefore, the Labour Court rightly held that the management has illegally terminated the services of the respondent No.1.

6. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, I find no ground to interfere with the decision of the learned Labour Court. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed alongwith the pending applications.

7. The amount deposited by the petitioner along with the interest accrued thereupon be released to the respondent No.1 forthwith.

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI (JUDGE) JULY 3, 2025