Ashok Kumar vs Kotak Mahindra Bank on 23 July 2026

1. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Branch: S-5, Ground Floor Green Park, Main Market, New Delhi-110016.

2. World Class Services Pvt. Ltd., RZA-97-C, 1st Floor, Road No. 04, Street No. 09, Mahipalpur Extn., New Delhi-110037.

Counsels: For Applicant/ Claimant: Sh. Shyamnath Vajpeyee, Proxy Counsel

For Management/ Respondent: Managements have already been proceeded ex-parte.

AWARD 23.07.2026

1. This is an application filed by the workman under section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred as “the Act”). Claimant in his claim statement stated that he was appointed as “Safai Karamchari” against the sanctioned vacant post by the management w.e.f. 01.10.2016 at Kotak Mahindra Bank, Branch S-5, Ground Floor Green Park Main Market New Delhi-110016, on contractual basis which was, in fact, a camouflage, since the work of cleaning was of a perennial nature and he worked continuously in the terms of Section 25-B of the Act. He worked sincerely and honestly, and no complaint was ever made against him in this regard. He had several

times requested the management to absorb him on regular basis and grant him the same pay scale, as given to the permanent employees. On 19.11.2017, his services were abruptly terminated without any rhyme and reason. He requested the management for his reinstatement with full back wages, however, management had not bothered. Being constrained, he has taken the recourse of the conciliation proceedings, where the conciliation was resulted into failure. Hence, he filed the present claim with the prayer to reinstate him with full back wages.

2. Management no. 1 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 12.10.2022. Initially, the management no. 2 marked its attendance only once i.e. 01.04.2021, thereafter, it stopped appearing. As such, he was also proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 12.04.2023.

3. Workman has entered into witness box to substantiate his claim. He has relied upon the seven documents in his evidence as under:

(i) Ex. WW1/1: Copy of Aadhar Card of the workman.

(ii) Ex. WW1/2: ESIC Certificate of the workman.

(iii) Ex. WW1/3: Complaint Letter dated 24.11.2017.

(iv) Ex. WW1/4: Demand notice dated 13.01.2018.

(v) Ex. WW1/5 & Ex. WW1/6: Two original speed post receipts.

(vi) Ex. WW1/7: Minimum wages registers (Colly.).

4. On the strength of the above mentioned documents, claimant stated that he had established the employer-employee relationship with the management no. 1 & 2. He relied upon the document exhibited as Ex. WW1/7, comprising two wage slips issued by management no. 2 for the months of 1.10.2017 to 31.10.2017 as well as 01.11.2017 to 30.11.2017, wherein he was given less payment than October, 2017 by the management no. 2.

5. From the document exhibited as Ex. WW1/2 i.e. e-Pehchan Card issued by the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) to the workman, the claimant has established the employer & employee relationship with the management no. 2 i.e. World Class Services Pvt. Ltd., where it was mentioned as Employer. From the above evidence on record, workman is able to establish the employer-employee relationship with management no.

2.

6. Now, the workman has to prove that his services were terminated illegally. In his evidence, the workman asserted that he had been appointed in management no. 1 through management no. 2 on 01.10.2016 and had worked continuously, thereafter, his services were abruptly terminated by the management on 19.11.2017.

7. Before proceeding further, the texts of Sections 25F, G and H of the Act are 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]. 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.

25H. Re-employment of retrenched workmen.—Where any workmen are retrenched, and the employer proposes to take into his employ any persons, he shall, in such manner as may be prescribed, give an opportunity 4[to the retrenched workmen who are citizens of India to offer themselves for re-employment and such retrenched workman] who offer themselves for re- employment shall have preference over other persons.

8. 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.

9. 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.]

10. From the oral evidence as well as documentary evidence Ex. WW1/2 & Ex. WW1/7 namely e-pehchaan issued by the ESIC to the workman and the wage slips placed on record, proves that workman has worked more than 240 days in a year. He had worked almost two years, therefore, it has been established that the workman has been in continuous service of one year and completed 240 days in a year.

11. Now, the next question arises, whether the services of the workman has been terminated illegally by the management no. 1 & 2. Since, it has been established on record from the above said documents Ex. WW1/2 & Ex. WW1/7 that the workman was the employee of the management no. 2. Management no. 1 was made as a party because being a principle employer. Therefore, grievance of the claimant is against the management-2 in whose role he was employed. Since the management no. 2 have not appeared and he was proceeded ex-parte on 12.04.2023. Therefore, the claimant’s assertion is that his services have been terminated illegally is taken as true as the management no. 2 has not brought any evidence that he has retrenched the worker legally. Therefore, it is also proved that workman’s services have been terminated illegally and unjustifiably.

12. 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.

13. Given these circumstances, a lump sum compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lac Only) is considered an appropriate relief. Hence, management no. 2, is hereby directed to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lac Only) to the claimant within two months of notification of this award, failing which the management no. 2 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 section17 of the Act. The file is consigned to record room.

ATUL KUMAR GARG Date: 23.07.2026

Presiding Officer.

CGIT-cum-Labour Court-II