* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Reserved on: 18 December, 2023
th
Pronounced on: 29 February, 2024
+ W.P.(C) 2252/2012 and CM APPL. No.4836/2012
SMT. SEEMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Vinay Sabharwal, Advocate
versus
MANAGEMENT OF M/S COLONEL SECURITY CHAMBERS
..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Sushant Kumar, Advocate
(Through VC)
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH
J U D G M E N T
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
1. The instant writ petition under Articles 226 and Article 227 of the
Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking
the following reliefs:
―a) issue a writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriating
writ, order or direction thereby to set side the impugned
award dated 02.01.2010 passed in I.D. No.402/2004 by
learned Labour Court No.VI, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi;
b) summon the record of the Learned Labour Court
I.D.No.402/2004 by learned Labour Court No.VI,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi;
c) Any other and further order that may deem fit and
appropriate in this context may also kindly be passed.‖
FACTUAL HISTORY
2. The petitioner was working with the respondent corporation and
th
she did not come to office for few days and upon her returning on 28
W.P.(C) 2252/2012
Page 1 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SARIKA
BHAMOO VERMA
Signing Date:02.03.2024
16:15:53
April 2004, services with the respondent corporation were
petitioner’s
terminated.
3. Thereafter, the petitioner sent a legal notice to the respondent on
th
28 August 2004, demanding reinstatement, which the respondent denied
th
vide letter dated 30 September 2004, and stated that the petitioner has
herself left the job therefore, she cannot seek reinstatement and alleged
that she abandonment her job.
4. Pursuant to which, the petitioner initiated an industrial dispute
against her alleged wrongful termination and sought reinstatement along
with consequential benefits. She has further claimed that she had been
st
employed with the petitioner as a Lady Guard since 1 February 1994,
and was later promoted to the position of Lady Supervisor. Moreover, her
last drawn salary was Rs.5000/- per month.
5. Accordingly, the petitioner filed her claim petition wherein she
denied any misconduct during her employment and refuted allegations of
abandoning the services. She further contended that her termination was
done wrongfully and violated various provisions of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter 'the Act") and other related rules after
th
28 April 2004. Hence, she sought reinstatement with continuity of
service, full back wages, and other reliefs.
6. The respondent countered the aforesaid claim petition, stating that
the petitioner abandoned her duties intentionally, which caused financial
loss to the respondent. It further denied her claims of promotion and
higher wages, asserting that petitioner worked as a peon/attendant at a
lower pay.
W.P.(C) 2252/2012
Page 2 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SARIKA
BHAMOO VERMA
Signing Date:02.03.2024
16:15:53
7. During the process of the trial before the learned Labour Court,
both the parties presented their evidence by way affidavits as well as
cross-examination was conducted by both the parties. Thereafter, the
nd
impugned award was passed by the learned Labour Court on 2 January,
2010 held that the petitioner was wrongfully terminated from her service
and was awarded a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/-.
8. Aggrieved by the quantum of the lumpsum compensation, the
petitioner has filed the instant petition.
PLEADINGS BEFORE THIS COURT
th
9. The instant writ petition was filed by the petitioner on 5 March,
2012 on the following grounds:
..A) That the award passed by the Ld. Labour Court is bad
―
in law and the same has been passed without considering the
documents and materials placed on record and the same is
not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside
and quashed.
B) That the Ld. Trial Court deviated from the normal rule
/relief to the workman / Petitioner of full backwages,
reinstatement and continuity of services etc. without any
basis, rhyme and reason.
C) That the Ld. Trial Court ought to have granted the
petitioner full backwges, reinstatement, continuity of
services etc.
D) That the denial of aforesaid normal relief to the
petitioner by the Ld. Trial. Court is tantamount to rewarding
the Respondent for its illegal/unjustified acts of termination
of services of petitioner.
E) That even the amount of so called compensation as
granted by the Ld. Labour Court is very meagre and
inadequate. Even the full backwages payable to the
Petitioner from the date of illegal termination of her services
W.P.(C) 2252/2012
Page 3 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SARIKA
BHAMOO VERMA
Signing Date:02.03.2024
16:15:53
till the date of passing of award comes to Rs.1,20,000/-
(approx.).
F) That despite holding the. termination of the service of the
petitioner as illegal and unjustified the Ld. Labour Court did
not consider that she is deemed to be in services of the
respondent with full back wages and all consequential
benefits, continuity of service etc "
…
10. The counter affidavit/ reply to the instant writ petition has been
st
filed by the respondent on 1 April, 2013. The relevant extract of the said
counter affidavit is as follows:
..2. Before setting out in detail, the various acts of
―
suppression and tampering / mis-representation on behalf of
the Petitioner, it is submitted that even otherwise on account
of facts and circumstances Set out in detail in the present
counter affidavit, the case of the Petitioner is wholly without
merit, false, frivolous, concocted and also contradictory and
not legally maintainable hence the same is liable to be
dismissed. The petitioner is trying to harass the respondent
through this cross writ as a writ to quash the impugned
order has already been filed by the respondent against the
petitioner titled as Management of M/s Colonel Security
Chambers versus Seema & Anr W.P (C) No 2281/2010
which is still pending in this Hon'ble Court so, this attempt
of the petitioner is completely a gross abuse of process of
law as the petitioner has taken/laid down contradictory
stands/ statements in the present writ as well as the writ filed
by the respondent against the petitioner titled as M/s
Management of M/s Colonel Security Chambers versus
Seema & Anr W.P (C) No 2281/2010, hence the same is
liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
3. That, the respondent respectfully submits that the
petitioner has taken vague, evasive and contradictory
grounds. It is also pertinent to mention here that no
substantive ground have been taken by the petitioner for why
this petition should be allowed
….‖
W.P.(C) 2252/2012
Page 4 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SARIKA
BHAMOO VERMA
Signing Date:02.03.2024
16:15:53
th
11. The petitioner filed rejoinder on 5 July, 2013 in response to the
aforesaid counter affidavit. The relevant extract of the same are as
follows:
1. That the contents of para 1 of the, preliminary
"…
objections are wrong and denied. It is wrong and denied that
the petitioner herein deserves no indulges whatsoever from
this Hon ble Court. It is further wrong and denied that this
’
Hon ble Court jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary
’
jurisdiction and a petitioner who approaches this Hon ble
’
Court by suppressing material facts, selectively placing
pleadings on record so as to defeat the rights of the others
and prevent them from even being adjudicated upon, is, not
entitled to any indulgence from this Hon le Court. In fact
’b
the petitioner has not concealed any fact in any manner
whatsoever.
2. That the contents of para 2 of the preliminary objections
are wrong and denied. It is wrong and denied that there are
any acts of, suppression, and tampering/mis-representation
on behalf of the, petitioner. It is wrong and denied that even
otherwise on account of facts and circumstances set out in
detail in the- present counter affidavit, the case of the
petitioner is wholly without merit, false, frivolous, concocted
and also, contradictory and not legally maintainable hence
the same is liable to be dismissed. It is further wrong and
denied that the petitioner is trying to harass the respondent
through this cross writ as a writ to quash the impugned
order has already been filed by. The respondent against the
petitioner titled as Management of M/s Colonel Security
Chambers versus Seema & Anr. W.P.,(C) No. 2281/2010
which is still pending in this Hon'ble Court so the attempt of
the petitioner is completely a gross abuse of process of law
as the petitioner - has taken /laid down contradictory
stands/statements in the present writ as well as the writ filed
by the respondent against the petitioner titled as M/s
Management of M/s Colonel Security Chambers versus
W.P.(C) 2252/2012
Page 5 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SARIKA
BHAMOO VERMA
Signing Date:02.03.2024
16:15:53
Seema & Anr. W.P (C) No. 2281/2010. In fact this writ has
been filed by petitioner for her due entitlement under law.
3. That the contents of para 3 of the preliminary objections
are wrong and denied. It is wrong and denied that the
petitioner has taken vague, evasive and contradictory
grounds. It is further wrong and denied that no substantive
ground have been taken by the petitioner as to why this
petition should be allowed
…‖
SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THIS COURT
(on behalf of the petitioner)
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned
award is legally flawed as it was made without proper consideration of
the evidence and documentation provided. The award lacks sustainability
under legal scrutiny and should be set- aside.
13. It is submitted that the learned Labour Court departed from the
customary practice of awarding full back wages, reinstatement, and
continuous service to the petitioner without providing any justifiable
rationale or basis for such deviation.
14. It is submitted that the learned Labour Court should have granted
the petitioner the relief of full back wages, reinstatement, and continuous
service. The failure of the learned Labour Court in awarding the relief to
the petitioner is in violation of her rights since her services were unjustly
terminated by the petitioner.
15. It is submitted that the compensation awarded by the learned
Labour Court is considered insufficient and inadequate as compared to
the full back wages owed to the petitioner from the date of her illegal
termination till the date of the impugned award.
W.P.(C) 2252/2012
Page 6 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SARIKA
BHAMOO VERMA
Signing Date:02.03.2024
16:15:53
16. It is submitted that despite holding the termination of services of
the petitioner being illegal and unjustified, the learned Labour Court did
not consider that she is presumed to be in employment of the respondent
as well as entitled to full back wages and all the consequential benefits,
continuity of service, etc.
17. In view of the submissions made above, it is submitted that the
instant petition has merit and the same may be allowed by this Court.
(on behalf of the respondent)
18. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently
opposed the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the
petitioner submitting to the effect that the petitioner does not merit any
leniency from this Court as there is selective presentation of facts and an
attempt to suppress material information, which undermines the rights of
others. Such a behavior does not deserve indulgence from the writ court.
19. It is submitted that the petitioner's case lacks merit and is
characterized as false, frivolous, and contradictory and the petitioner's
attempt to file a cross-writ is nothing but a gross misuse of legal process,
since a writ petition challenging the impugned award is already pending
before this Court.
20. It is submitted that the petitioner's grounds are vague, evasive, and
contradictory, lacking any substantive basis for the petition to be allowed.
The petitioner has taken contradictory stances before both the learned
Labour Court and this Court during proceedings since before the learned
Labour Court the petitioner claimed only monetary compensation,
however, later the petitioner expressed her willingness to rejoin.
W.P.(C) 2252/2012
Page 7 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SARIKA
BHAMOO VERMA
Signing Date:02.03.2024
16:15:53
21. It is submitted that the petitioner failed to file a replication or
rejoinder to the respondent's detailed written statement before the learned
Labour Court thereby admitting the management's stance.
22. It is submitted that the petitioner's claim before the learned Labour
Court was based on false grounds, alleging illegal termination without
valid reasons and victimization for legitimate demands without providing
details or supporting documents.
23. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondent submitted that instant writ being without any
merit is liable to be dismissed.
(on behalf of the petitioner- Rejoinder)
24. It is submitted that the petitioner denies the assertion that they
deserve no indulgence from this Court and refutes the claim that they
suppressed material facts or selectively placed pleadings before the Court.
In this regard, it is submitted that the petitioner has not concealed any
fact.
25. It is further submitted that the instant writ petition is not an abuse
of process of law but a legitimate claim for their entitlement under the
law.
26. It is submitted that the petitioner denies taking vague, evasive, or
contradictory grounds and the substantive grounds have been presented
for the instant petition. It is further submitted that the respondent's
interpretation of their testimony and counter affidavit is wrongful.
27. It is further submitted that the petitioner did not file any false,
concocted, or fabricated claim before the learned Labour Court and the
W.P.(C) 2252/2012
Page 8 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SARIKA
BHAMOO VERMA
Signing Date:02.03.2024
16:15:53
impugned award is legally sound and sustainable in terms of its
and illegal.
observation that the petitioner’s termination was unjust
28. In view of the submissions made above, it is submitted that the
instant petition has merit and the same may be allowed by this Court.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
29. The matter was heard at length with arguments advanced by the
learned counsels on both sides. This Court has also perused the entire
material on record. This Court has duly considered the factual scenario of
the matter, judicial pronouncements relied upon by the parties and
pleadings presented by the learned counsel of the parties.
30. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has been
inadequately compensated by the learned Labour Court. In rival
contentions, the respondent submitted that the petitioner has set up a false
and frivolous case hence, she is not entitled to any relief.
31. It is a settled position of law that if the Labour Court is of the
opinion that the award of certain compensation would meet the ends of
justice in a particular case, then keeping in mind the relevant facts and
circumstances of that case, the Labour Court has the power to award
compensation even though there may be a claim for back wages or
reinstatement made by the workman.
32. This power is derived from Section 11-A of Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 (hereinafter 'the Act") which deals with power of Labour
Courts, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case
of discharge or dismissal of workmen. Section 11-A of the Act has been
reproduced herein below for reference:
W.P.(C) 2252/2012
Page 9 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SARIKA
BHAMOO VERMA
Signing Date:02.03.2024
16:15:53
"..11A. Powers of Labour Courts, Tribunals and National
Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge
or dismissal of workmen. Where an industrial dispute
—
relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has
been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National
Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the
adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or
National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that
the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it
may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or
dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on
such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give
such other relief to the workman including the award of
any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as
the circumstances of the case may require: Provided that
in any proceeding under this section the Labour Court,
Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall
rely only on the materials on record and shall not take
any fresh evidence in relation to the matter…‖
33. It is a well settled principle that reinstatement in service is not a
vested right and a reasonable compensation in lieu of the reinstatement
may be granted by the Court after taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances of the case. In case titled Allahabad Bank and Ors. v.
1
Krishan Pal Singh in
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held the
following:
urt of Allahabad for
―8. The directions issued by the High Co
reinstatement were stayed by this Court on 23.08.2019.
During the pendency of these proceedings, the respondent
–
workman had attained age of superannuation. Though, there
was strong suspicion, there was no acceptable evidence on
record for dismissal of the workman. However, as the
th
SLP(C) No. 19648/2019, decided on 20 September 2021
1
W.P.(C) 2252/2012
Page 10 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SARIKA
BHAMOO VERMA
Signing Date:02.03.2024
16:15:53
workman has worked only for a period of about six years
and he has already attained the age of superannuation, it is
a fit case for modification of the relief granted by the High
Court. The reinstatement with full back wages is not
automatic in every case, where termination / dismissal is
found to be not in accordance with procedure prescribed
under law. Considering that the respondent was in effective
service of the Bank only for about six years and he is out of
service since 1991, and in the meantime, respondent had
attained age of superannuation, we deem it appropriate that
ends of justice would be met by awarding lump sum
monetary compensation. We accordingly direct payment of
lump sum compensation of Rs.15 lakhs to the respondent,
within a period of eight weeks from today. Failing to pay the
same within the aforesaid period, the respondent is entitled
for interest @ 6% per annum, till payment.‖
34. On the basis of the above, the compensation in certain cases is the
solution for unjustified and premature termination of employment. The
relief of compensation is more appropriate remedy in certain cases
concerning the question of unlawful termination of service of an
employee. Hence, even if the finding of the learned Labour Court is that
termination is illegal, the learned Labour Court has the power to decline
reinstatement if it is of the view that compensation will suffice.
35. Now this Court will advert to perusing the impugned award. The
relevant extract of the award is as follows:
RELIEF
―
19 In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the
Workman has succeeded in proving her case. Though she
has stated her salary to be Rs.5000/- in her statement of
claim, but she has admitted to be Rs.3000/-in her cross-
examination. Thus, taking into consideration the totality
W.P.(C) 2252/2012
Page 11 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SARIKA
BHAMOO VERMA
Signing Date:02.03.2024
16:15:53
of the circumstances, I think that a lump sum amount of
Rs. 1,20,000/- towards her all claims will meet the ends
of justice. Therefore, an award for an amount of
Rs.1,20,000/- is passed in favour of the Workman and
against the Management which be paid by the
management within a period of one month of the
publication of the award, failing which interest at the rate
of 9% p.a. (nine percent) would be payable by the
management to the workman. As far as the prayer with
regard to reinstatement of the Workman concerned, since
she has herself admitted in her cross- examination that
she was not interested in reinstatement and filed the case
for compensation, there is no order as to
reinstatement
…"
36. The learned Labour Court has held that since, the petitioner has
herself admitted to the fact she is not seeking re-instatement instead she
is seeking a compensation, therefore, the learned Labour Court awarded a
lump sum amount of Rs.1,20,000/- towards all claims of the petitioner.
37. In view of the aforesaid dicta as well as the submissions advanced
by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, this Court is of
the view that since the petitioner was terminated in the year 2004 and the
impugned award has been passed in the year 2010, the learned Labour
Court has rightly exercised its discretion and adjudicated that the
petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs.1,20,000/-, hence there in no
illegality which merits interference of this Court.
38. In light of justice and equity as well in consideration of the fact that
the instant petition is pending since the year 2010, this Court deems it
apposite to modify the lumpsum compensation granted to the petitioner.
Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to award a compensation of
W.P.(C) 2252/2012
Page 12 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SARIKA
BHAMOO VERMA
Signing Date:02.03.2024
16:15:53
Rs.2,15,000/- in lieu of reinstatement along with all consequential
benefits awarded by the learned Labour Court to the respondent no.1.
nd
39. Accordingly, the impugned award dated 2 January, 2010 passed
by the learned Labour Court VI, Karkardooma, Delhi in ID no. 402/04
the quantum of compensation to the petitioner stands modified. This
Court awards Rs.2,15,000/- as compensation instead of Rs.1,25,000/- in
lieu of reinstatement. It is directed that the aforesaid awarded
compensation shall be paid to the petitioner within 6 weeks from today.
40. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition stands
partially allowed and the same is disposed of along with the pending
applications, if any.
41. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.
(CHANDRA DHARI SINGH)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 29, 2024
sv/db/ryp
W.P.(C) 2252/2012
Page 13 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SARIKA
BHAMOO VERMA
Signing Date:02.03.2024
16:15:53