Sh. Anil Kumar vs Chief Post Master General on 16 October 2026

1. Office of the Director, Department of Posts, Government of India, GPO, New Delhi.

2. Office of the Chief Post Master General, Delhi Circle, Meghdoot Bhawan, 3rd Floor, Jhandewalan, Delhi-110055.

…Management/respondent

Counsels: For Applicant/ Claimant: Sh. Shailendra Kumar Mishra, Ld. AR.

For Management/ Respondent: Sh. Sandeep Tyagi, Ld. AR for the management.

Award 16.10.2026

In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour and Employment, vide its Order No. L-40012/01/2017-IR (DU) dated 24.07.2017 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer, that

is the Management of Department of Posts, Government of India, GPO and their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal, terms of which are as under: “Whether termination of workman Sh. Anil Kumar as Safai Karamchari by the department of post under the office of Director, GPO, New Delhi w.e.f. July 2014 is fair & legal. If no, what relief he is entitled to?”

2. In response to the reference, claimant has filed his claim statement. He claims to have been appointed by the respondent no. 1 under the instructions for and on behalf of the respondent no. 2 as “Safai Karamchari” from March, 2004. He was paid daily wages @ Rs. 311/- per day and his presence was also marked in the muster roll of the department. He did his work continuously till the first week of July, 2014. His wages were revised annually. It is further his case that from time to time, he had requested his office to make his service regular and permanent on the ground that he would get over age and considering his qualification, working experience and his clean service antecedents and character. However, suddenly, in the first week of July, 2014, his services were terminated without giving any notice and without complying with the statutory provisions of the various labour laws. He has approached the Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Govt. of India on 16.12.2016 to redress his grievances, but no result was yielded. Hence, he filed the claim with the prayer that he be reinstated in services with full back wages.

3. Respondent herein has filed the counter reply. First of all, he took the preliminary objections stating that claim is not maintainable in its present form and law. He had referred the Industrial Disputes (Delhi Amendment) Act, 2003, wherein one year limitation has been prescribed for approaching this Tribunal. He further submitted that present suit of the claimant is not maintainable in its present form and law and is liable to be dismissed because claimant was never appointed as Safai Karamchari in the office of the management. It is case of the respondent that claimant was called from time to time for sweeping and cleaning purpose in the office for a day or two in a month, and the wages for his services for such date, has been paid on very same day accordingly. It has been denied that that the workman has continuously worked for ten years. According

to the respondent, he was called for sweeping and cleaning as and when required. It is further denied that the workman had been paid daily wages @ Rs. 311/- per day and his presence was marked in the muster roll. He submitted that claim is liable to be dismissed.

4. Claimant has filed the rejoinder denying the averments made in the written statement and affirmed the facts mentioned in his claim statement.

5. After completion of the pleadings, vide order dated 05.10.2018, following issues have been framed i.e.:-

(i) Whether the claim is not legally tenable in view of the various preliminary objections?

(ii) In terms of the reference.

6. Workman in support of his contention has examined himself. He has reiterated the facts as mentioned in his claim statement. He has relied upon the following documents i.e.:

(i) Ex. WW1/1: Copy of Scholar’s register and transfer certificate form.

(ii) Ex. WW1/2A, Ex. WW1/2B & Ex. WW1/2C: Copies of identity cards issued to the claimant from time to time.

(iii) Ex. WW1/3A, Ex. WW1/3B, Ex. WW1/3C & Ex. WW1/3D: Copies of character certificates issued by the respondent no. 1 from time to time.

(iv) Ex. WW1/4A, Ex. WW1/4B, Ex. WW1/4C & Ex. WW1/4D: Copies of letters dated 28.06.2012, 19.07.2012, 01.02.2013 & 12.06.2013 respectively written by the claimant Anil Kumar to Chief Postmaster General, Delhi Circle, New Delhi-110001 regarding regularization of his job.

(v) Ex. WW1/5A & Ex. WW1/5B: Copies of representations dated 16.03.2015 and 21.05.2015 respectively.

(vi) Ex. WW1/6A & Ex. WW1/6B: Copy of RTI application dated 15.05.2015 and reply dated 09.06.2015 respectively.

(vii) Mark A to Mark H: Memos issued by the department from time to time regarding payment of claimant’s wages.

7. Workman was put to the test of cross-examination where he denied to have issued any appointment letter by the management. During the course of examination, he had produced the identity card issued to the claimant by the respondent, GPO branch, New Delhi bearing I-card no. 0149 issued to him on 26.07.2008 and valid till 25.07.2011. He further submitted that he was not getting his remuneration through any post office account but by cash. In a week he was working for six days with a weekly off on Sunday. Witness had voluntarily stated that he had worked for the management continuously for 10 year on daily wage basis and during that period he was also getting the liveries from the management.

8. In rebuttal, management has also examined one witness Sh. Prasenjit Chatarji, the Assistant Director (Admn.). He has reiterated the facts as mentioned in his written statement. He has relied upon the document i.e.:

(i) Ex. MW1/1: Photo copies of attendance register of employees w.e.f January, 2012 till November, 2014. (colly.- 36 pages)

9. Witness was put to the test of cross-examination where he has admitted that he has no knowledge regarding the number of employees who were working on the contract basis between March, 2004 till July, 2014 at GPO, New Delhi. He had brought the records of payment pertaining to the daily wages/workers working for the period of January, 2013 to March, 2014 (except October, 2013 and November, 2013). He did not bring the records of payment of the daily wages/workers from March, 2004 to December, 2012. He did not have any knowledge regarding the I-card issued by the department from time to time which is exhibited as Ex. WW1/2A, Ex. WW1/2B and Ex. WW1/2C. He further admitted that management had made the payment to the claimant through voucher. He submitted that there is no post of sweeper sanction in the management. During the course of examination, he has brought the records i.e.:

(i) Mark A to N: Contingency/wages of voucher (wages) of various months (i.e. January 2013 to September, 2013, December, 2013, January, 2014 to March, 2014 of daily worker of New Delhi, GPO, New Delhi GPO,

New Delhi-110001 received from AO (PA Section), O/o GM (PAF), Postal Account, Delhi-110054.

(ii) Mark MW1/X: Records in respect of sanctioned strength & working strength in sweeper cadre in the year 2012, 2013 & 2014.

(iii) Mark MW1/Y: Records for the period from 27.05.2011 to 01.12.2013 in respect of the numbers of daily worker working for the purpose of cleaning & sweeping in New Delhi GPO. The witness is not able to answer whether on the basis of contingency/wages vouchers; the workman Anil Kumar was the same person who was the petitioner. He further admitted that workman was hired on daily basis rate as and when the requirement arose for cleaning/sweeper work.

10. I have heard the argument at bar, perused the record and analyze the evidence brought by the parties. Whole case of the workman rests upon the premise that he had worked continuously for ten years and his services had been terminated illegally and unjustifiably without any rhyme and reason. For proving the same, he has relied upon the documents i.e. Character certificates issued by the respondent no. 1 from time to time are exhibited as Ex. WW1/3A, Ex. WW1/3B, Ex. WW1/3C & Ex. WW1/3D. His further case is that he has written various letters dated 28.06.2012, 19.07.2012, 01.02.2013 and 12.06.2013 requesting the respondents to regularize his services as exhibited as Ex. WW1/4A, Ex. WW1/4B, Ex. WW1/4C & Ex. WW1/4D.

11. While the respondent case rests upon the premises that the workman was never appointed as Sweeper as there was no sanctioned post. Claimant’s services were availed as and when the need arises and the wages have been paid accordingly. He has relied upon the various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein it was held that the entire burden lie upon the applicant/claimant to establish that he was employee. According to him, workman herein has failed to prove that he was our employee as no appointment letter was issued to him. Even, the workman has not proved the fact that ever he has continuously worked with the respondent for ten years.

12. First of all, this Tribunal has to decide the maintainability of this petition in view of the preliminary objection raised by the respondent in its written statement. The first issue is Whether the claim is not legally tenable in view of the various preliminary objections?, where respondent has firstly stated that claim is not maintainable in view of the Industrial Disputes (Delhi Amendment) Act, 2003, wherein one year has been prescribed for approaching this Tribunal. Secondly, that there is no relationship of the employer and employee between the parties and that the claimant was called upon to work on one or two occasion, as and when his services were required and was paid wages accordingly.

13. The first contention of the respondent is not tenable because Industrial Disputes (Delhi Amendment) Act, 2003, where one year limitation has been given for filing of the claim in respect of Section 2A of the Act and not to references made under section 10 of the Act. In the present case, reference has been made by the appropriate government after applying its judicial mind where no limitation is prescribed. Moreover, Delhi Amendment is applicable in respect of the employees where the appropriate government is the state government. Here, admittedly the claimant is alleged to have been employed by the department of posts which is a central government department.

14. So far so, the next contention of the respondent is that claimant was not an employee of the respondent, the evidence led by the parties is required to be considered in accordance with law.

15. Before proceeding further, the texts of Sections 25F of the Act is required to be reproduced herein:

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 2 [for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and

(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government 3 [or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].

16. On perusal of the above said sections, it is inferred that the claimants have no absolute right to remain in the employment of the management. The management can discontinue or retrench the workmen who have completed not less than one year of service under the employer if he has given a one month notice in writing indicating the reason for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired or he has paid the wages in lieu of notice period. The second condition is that the retrenchment compensation shall also be paid equivalent to 15-days of average pay for every completed year of continuous service. Besides this, appropriate government shall also be informed regarding the retrenchment.

17. Section 25-B of the Act defines the term “continuous service”. Clause- 2 of the said section states that where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer. Clause-2 of section 25-B of the Act is also required to be reproduced herein-

Clause-2 of Section 25-B of the Act-

(2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months,

he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer- (a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than-

(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine;

(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case; (b) for a period of six months, if the workman, during a period of six calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than-

(i) ninety-five days, in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine;

(ii) one hundred and twenty days, in any other case. Explanation.- For the purpose of clause (2), the number of days on which a workman has actually worked under an employer shall include the days on which-

(i) he has been laid-off under an agreement or as permitted by standing orders made under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (20 of 1946), or under the Act or under any other law applicable to the industrial establishment;

(ii) he has been on leave with full wages, earned in the previous year;

(iii) he has been absent due to temporary disablement caused by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment; and

(iv) in the case of a female, she has been on maternity leave; so, however, that the total period of such maternity leave does not exceed twelve weeks.]

18. What is required to be proved by the claimant is that he has continuously worked for 240 days in a calendar year. 240 days include the Sunday and holiday as well. Claimant claimed to have worked for continuously ten years. The document as Ex. WW1/1 is the transfer certificate of the workman. The document as Ex. WW1/2A is the I-card issued by the department of post from 16.07.2005 to 15.07.2008 and the same is the extension of I-card as per Ex. WW1/2B where the validity of I-card was extended upto 25.07.2011. It was again extended for 01.03.2012 to 28.02.2015 as Ex. WW1/2C. Records further substantiate that Assistant Director (Admin.), GPO had issued the character certificates to the claimant on 14.03.2008, 07.07.2009, 18.01.2011 & 07.04.2012 as Ex. WW1/3A, Ex. WW1/3B, Ex. WW1/3C and Ex. WW1/3D. Out of these said certificates, two Assistant Directors (Admin.) namely Sh. Brahma Deo and Sh. Arjan Singh Dahiya called by the Tribunal had admitted to have issued the character certificates as Ex. WW1/3A and Ex. WW1/3B. The Person who issued the certificate Ex. WW1/3D had expired. As such he could not come. These documents clearly establish that, though they have no direct link with the employment of the claimant with the respondent, they do establish that the claimant had worked with the respondent for long otherwise, the Assistant Directors (Admin.) at different times would not have issued character certificates in his favour. The said character certificate was to be issued to the person known to the issuing authority, as described therein. Naturally, he was working with the respondent; otherwise, there would have been no reason to issue a character certificate to a Sweeper working there, who according to the respondent, had been called from time to time.

19. The non-production of the record prior to 2012 and issuance of the character certificate by the Assistant Director (Admin.) in various occasions i.e. in the years 2008, 2009, 2011 & 2012 establish that the claimant has been working for a long period. Therefore, the assertion of the claimant is deemed to be true that he worked from March, 2004 to July, 2014. If the respondent’s

stand is that the claimant was engaged as a daily wager, then he should have produced the record which he has failed to do. Therefore, by preponderance of evidence, claimant is able to prove that he was employed by the respondent and worked continuously from March, 2004 to July, 2014.

20. In view of the discussion above, it is held that the management has not followed any of the condition prescribed in Section 25 before discontinuing of the service of the workman which he had performed continuously for the last ten years. Hence, termination of the workman is held to be illegal in violation of the principle of law. Relief Now, the question arises as to what relief the workman is entitled. As a general rule, when termination is declared illegal, the appropriate relief is reinstatement with full back wages. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as Employers, Management of central P& D Inst. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Another, AIR 2005 Supreme Court 633 that it is not always mandatory to order reinstatement even after the termination is held illegal. Instead, compensation can be granted by the industrial adjudicator. Similar views were expressed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled as Indian Hydraulic Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kishan Devi and Bhagwati Devi & Ors., ILR (2007) Delhi 219 wherein it was held by the court that even if the termination is found to be illegal, the relief of reinstatement with full back wages need not be granted automatically, and the relief may be moulded according to the facts and circumstances of each case, and the court can allow compensation to the claimant instead of reinstatement with back wages. The same principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs. Mahadeo Krishna Naik 2025 Latest Caselaw 157 SC, wherein it was observed that upon dismissal being aside by a court of Law, reinstatement with full back wages is not an automatic relief and in certain situations, lump sum compensation is a better relief.

Given these circumstances, a lump sum compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lac Only) is considered as an appropriate relief. Hence,

management is hereby directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lac Only) to the claimant within two months of notification of this award, failing which the management shall also pay interest @ 9% per annum on the aforesaid amount from the date of award until realization. A copy of this award be sent to the appropriate government for notification under section 17 of the Act. The file is consigned to record room.

Date: 16.10.2026

ATUL KUMAR GARG

(Presiding Officer) CGIT-Cum- Labour Court-II