Sh. Dhiri Singh vs C.P.W.D. Anr on 19 October 2026

1. The Executive Engineer-cum-Senior Manager, C.P.W.D. IIIDEM Project, Plot No.1, Sector-13, New Delhi-110078.

2. M/s Sanjeev Nain, 9720, Behal Gali West Gorakh Park, Shahdara, New Delhi-110032. …Management/Respondents Counsels: For Applicant/ Claimant: Sh. Sanjay Singh, Ld. AR for the claimant.

For Management/ Respondent: Sh. Atul Bhardwaj, Ld. AR along with Sh. Akshay Saini for Management No.1 (CPWD). Sh. Daleep Kumar Sah, Ld. AR along with Sh. Sanjeev Nain, proprietor for Management No.2 (M/s 298 Sanjeev Nain) (already ex-parte vide order dt 10.10.2022).

Award 19.10.2026

This is an application under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (Herein after referred to as ‘the Act’). Claimant has triggered the process of filing the claim after his unsuccessful attempt for reconciliation. In his claim, claimant has stated to have been working since 01.01.2014 at the post of guard with the management, at the last drawn

salary of Rs. 13,724/- per month. He did his duty with sincerity & hard work and has not given any chance of complaint to anyone. The management has not been providing the workman legal facility i.e. attendance card, leave book, pay-slip, casual leave, overtime, etc. When he insisted, his services were terminated on 20.01.2019 by the management. Respondent no. 1 (CPWD) has filed the counter reply, denying the existence of relationship of employee & employer. It has submitted that claimant is labourer of the contractor to whom contract has been awarded by the CPWD after inviting open tender as per codal provisions. He was neither appointed by the CPWD, nor given any wages by it. It is further his case that it is the contractor who is responsible or answerable to the CPWD authority. He has also relied upon the judgement passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi & Ors. [2006 (4) SCC1], and Surender Prasad Tiwari vs. U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad [Appeal (civil) 3981 of 2006]. He has submitted that claim qua him be dismissed. Respondent No. 2 (M/s Sanjeev Nain) has neither appeared nor filed any reply. He was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 10.10.2022. After completion of the pleadings, following issues have been framed vide order dt 16.01.2023:

1. Whether the proceeding is maintainable.

2. Whether there exist employer and employee relationship between the claimant and management No.1.

3. Whether the service of the claimant was illegally terminated by respondent No.1.

4. To what relief the claimant is entitled to, from whom and from which date.

Workman, in order to prove his case, has examined himself, and filed affidavit. He has reiterated the same statement in his affidavit as stated by him in his claim statement. He has relied upon following nine documents:

1. Ex. WW1/1 Copy of the Demand Notice dated 19.02.2019.(OSR)

2. Ex. WW1/2 & Ex. WW1/3 Copy of the Postal Receipts. (OSR)

3. Ex. WW1/4 Copy of the Statement of Claim. (OSR)

4. Ex. WW1/5 Copy of the Certificate u/s. 2A of the ID Act. 1947. (OSR)

5. Ex. WW1/6 Copy of I-Card.

6. Ex. WW1/7 Copy of the e-Pehchan Card of ESI.

7. Mark A Copy of the Complaint dated 19.02.2019.

8. Mark B Copy of the reply filed by the management no. before the conciliation officer.

9. Mark C Copy of the attendance and PF record.(Colly)

Witness was cross-examined by the management No.1. The witness has admitted that he was not the employee of the CPWD. He was appointed by management No. 2, who used to pay him monthly wages and mark his attendance. He was deployed by management No.1 at the premises of management No.2. He never received any monthly wage from management No.1 and management No.1 has not marked his attendance. In rebuttal CPWD, the management No.1, has examined one witness i.e. Sh. Akshay Saini Exceutive & Senior Manager. He has also reiterated the same facts as mentioned by him in his Written Statement. He has stated that contractor Sanjeev Nain being the employer is responsible for deducting the subscription of ESI, PF from the wages of workman, and to deposit it to the concerned authority. The witness was put to the test of cross-examination. He admitted that licence under Contract Labour (Abolition and Regulation) Act was not required because workforce was less than the required workforce. He was not aware as to how many contract of the contractor were going on at the relevant point of time. He cannot tell whether any representative of CPWD remained present at the time of disbursement of monthly wages to the worker. He further submitted that management No.1 might have taken the details of ESI & PF registration from the contractor. He cannot tell who used to mark the attendance of the worker of the contractor at the time, at the work site.

It is also important to mention here that management No. 2, i.e. M/S Sanjeev Nain has been appearing regularly after 13.05.2026 but he has not taken any steps, even after being asked, for setting aside ex-parte order passed against it. Therefore, it is assumed that there was no defence as far as respondent No.2 is concerned. Whole of the case of the claimant, rests upon the premise that he had been working with the management since 01.01.2014, till the date of his termination, i.e. on 20.01.2019. His case is further based on the document Exhibit WW1/6, i.e. copy of I-card, Exhibit WW1/7, i.e. copy of the e-pehchan card of ESI, Mark-B i.e. copy of reply filed by the management before the Conciliation Office, as well as Mark C, i.e. copy of attendance, wage and PF record. It is further his case that since the management No.1 (CPWD) had not taken any licence under CLRA, as well as the fact that the witness was unable to state whether any officer of CPWD remained present at the time of disbursement of the monthly wages. So, he submitted that his services have been terminated by CPWD and the management No. 2 to whom the contract was awarded. While the management No. 1 case is that there is no employee and employer relationship, in fact, and contract was awarded to M/s Sanjeev Nain and it is he who was responsible for the service conditions of the employee. He was only the principal employer. He has referred to the cross-examination of the claimant where he had admitted to have been appointed by the management No. 2, M/s Sanjeev Nain, who used to pay his monthly wages and mark his attendance. He has further admitted in the cross-examination that he was deployed by management No. 2 at the premises of management No. 1. I have heard the argument at bar, perused the record and analysed the evidence. Now, before proceeding further, Sec. 2 (oo), Sec. 25F, Sec. 25G, Sec. 25H are required to be produced herein:

2 (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 (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;]

25B. Definition of continuous service.—For the purposes of this Chapter,—

(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorised leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman;

(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; and

(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; and

(ii) one hundred and twenty days, in any other case.

Explanation.—For the purposes 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 this Act or under any other law applicable to the industrial establishment;

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

(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.]

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 continuous 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. 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 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. These sections have extensively dealt with the manner of retrenchment of the workman. Section 2 (oo) defines retrenchment. Five exceptions have been carved out in section 2 (oo) when the termination of the person cannot be said to be retrenched. First exception is incorporated in the definition of the section itself, i.e., if the services of the workman was terminated by way of punishment. Other 4 exception are given in sub-section (a), (b), (bb), (c), i.e. voluntary retirement of the workman; or retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation; or 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 termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health. Further, Sec.25F states that further the workman service can be terminated, and they are not held to be illegal if the employer has complied a certain condition. The first and foremost condition is that the workman should have been in continuous employment of one year. Here, the workman has alleged that they have been working with the management of CPWD and M/s Sanjeev Nain. However, the I-card i.e. Exhibit WW1/6, has established that he was in fact employed by M/s Sanjeev Nain, the management No.2, as regards from the 01.07.2017 to 31.05.2018. Exhibit WW1/7, is the ESIC e-pehchan card. Here, the employee name was mentioned, as Dhiri Singh, the claimant, and the employer detail is Sanjeev Nain, having address of 9720, Behal Gali No.4, West Gorakh Park, Shahdara, New Delhi-110032. Mark B is document

addressed to the Assistant Commissioner (Central Delhi), Ministry of Labour and Employment, written by Sanjeev Nain, the proprietor of management No.2, wherein, he had stated that Dhiri Singh was paid the wages up to December 2018 and Kuldeep Kumar was paid up to November 2018. It has further been mentioned in the said document that the amount of Rs. 40,000 was taken as advance by Sh. Dhiri Singh vide receipt number 007 dt 17.09.2018 from him, while the balance amount was to be paid to Sh. Dhiri Singh, which was Rs. 8,973/- (up to 19th of January 2019) and to Sh. Kuldeep Kumar an amount of Rs. 13,724 (December 18) + Rs. 8,973 (up to 19th January 2019)=Rs. 22,697/-. Even an amount of Rs. 8,330/- was due from them. Since the management No. 2 (M/S Sanjeev Nain) has not come and was proceeded ex-parte, therefore, it is he who can answer the document Mark B, which was relied upon by the workman. In his absence the document be read against him that he has not paid the salary to the claimant. I have analysed the evidence on record. It appears that the workman was employed by the management No.2 i.e. M/s Sanjeev Nain, because workman has admitted in the cross-examination that he was not the employee of CPWD. He was appointed by management No.2 who used to pay him monthly wages and mark his attendance. He was deployed by management No.1 (CPWD) at the premise of management No.2 (M/s Sanjeev Nain). When the payment of wages for employment are not disputed then it has been established that the claimant is the employee of management No.2 i.e. M/s Sanjeev Nain. Since there is no relationship between the workman and management No.1 i.e. CPWD, then no question arises of his termination. Since the management No.2 has not come forward to rebut that his services have not been terminated illegally, it has been established on record that his services has been terminated illegally. Workman has already proved that he has been in continuous employment for more than 240 days in the previous year as is evident from the ESI Card as well as the letter “Mark-B”. Now, the question that arises is what relief the claimant is entitled to and from whom. As a general rule, when termination is declared illegal,

the appropriate relief is reinstatement with full back wages. However, much time has already passed and there is no positive evidence that the claimant was unemployed since his termination from service. It is 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 of a claimant is held illegal, the industrial adjudicator is not supposed to direct reinstatement along with full back wages and the relief can 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. Same view has been expressed by the Apex Court in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs. Mahadeo Krishna Naik 2025 Latest Caselaw 157 SC stating that upon dismissal, being set aside by a court of Law, reinstatement with full back wages is not an automatic relief. In some cases, lump sum compensation is a better relief. Circumstances suggest that the claimant had worked with the management No.2 (M/s Sanjeev Nain) for almost five years at the post of guard, who used to pay his monthly wages and mark his attendance. When one’s services have been terminated then, one faces a lot of difficulty in finding a new Job. Given these circumstances that the claimant’s services have been terminated in breach of section 25F of the Act, a lump sum compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) is considered an appropriate relief. Hence, management No.2 is hereby directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) to the claimant within two months of notification of this award, failing which the management shall also pay interest @ 8% per annum on the aforesaid amount from the date of award till the date of realization. A copy of this award be sent to the appropriate government for notification U/S 17 of the I.D Act. The file is consigned to record room.

ATUL KUMAR GARG

Dated: 19.10.2026

Presiding Officer

CGIT – cum – Labour Court – II