Sh. Rama Shankar Yadav vs DIAL & Anr on 1 October 2026

1. M/s Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd New Udaan Bhawan, Opposite Terminal-3 IGL Airport, New Delhi-110037.

2. M/s Travel Food Service (P) Ltd. New Udaan Bhawan, Opposite Terminal-3 IGL Airport, New Delhi-110037. …Management/Respondents Counsels: For Applicant/ Claimant: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Proxy for the claimant.

For Management/ Respondent: Ms. Muskan Kaushik and Sh. Vivek Kaushal, Ld. ARs for Management No.1 Management No.2 has already been proceeded ex-parte.

Award 01.10.2026

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 filed a claim stating that he has been working for Management No. 1 through Management No. 2 since 09.02.2012 at the last drawn salary of Rs. 10,960/-. He alleged that the respondents took 12 hours of work from him but has not

paid any overtime. Management has also not provided legal facilities to him, which he had demanded orally from time to time. Because of this, the management got annoyed with the claimant and terminated his services on 06.11.2017 without any rhyme and reason, while also obtaining his signatures on blank papers, vouchers, and letterheads of the institution. He had taken recourse of conciliation, and after its failure, he has filed the present claim statement before this tribunal. Respondent No. 1 has filed a counter reply. He has denied the existence of an employer-employee relationship between the claimant and Management No. 1. Claimant was engaged by the Independent Vendor i.e., Respondent No. 2 who was having license to develop, set up, operate, maintain and manage the F&B outlet. In the absence of an employer- employee relationship, the question of terminating his services doesn’t arise. Claimant has not approached this tribunal with clean hands, as such he has prayed that the claim qua him be dismissed. Respondent No. 2 also filed a counter reply. He has stated that the terms of reference are totally illegal, ultra vires, and liable to be rejected. There were allegations against the workman that he takes money from the new recruits. There was a written complaint filed against him by the new recruits. Management filed complaint in the police station to take necessary action. When the management sought an explanation from him, he has preferred to resign from the services of the management. As such, he submitted that claim is false, frivolous, concocted. He further raised the objection that the claimant was working in the post of supervisor. As such, the claimant doesn't come within the purview of the Act. However, nothing has been mentioned about the length of the service as well as their termination. The claimants filed their Rejoinder denying the averments made in the Written Statement and reaffirming the contents of their Statement of Claim. It is also important to mention here that after filing of Written Statement, management No.2 has not appeared and he was proceeded ex-parte. And after completing of the pleadings, following issues have been framed vide order dated 23.02.2023:

1. Whether the proceeding is maintainable?

2. Whether there exist employer and employee relationship between M1 and M2 with the claimant?

3. Whether the service of the workman was illegally terminated by the mgt no?

4. Whether the workman is entitled to the relief of reinstatement back wages and other consequential benefits, if yes, from whom?

5. To what other relief the parties entitled to and from which date? In order to substantiate his averments made in the claim, claimant has appeared in the witness box. He has reiterated the text as mentioned by him in his claim statement. He has relied upon the following 8 documents:

1. ⁠ ⁠Exhibit WW1/1 Copy of Appointment Letter dated 09.02.2012 (OSR).

2. ⁠ ⁠Exhibit WW1/2 Copy of Demand Notice dated 14.11.2017.

3. ⁠ ⁠Exhibit WW1/3 Original Postal Receipt.

4. ⁠ ⁠Exhibit WW1/4 Original Postal Receipt.

5. ⁠ ⁠Exhibit WW1/5 Copy of Police Compliant dated 11.11.2017.

6. ⁠ ⁠Exhibit WW1/6 Copy of Statement of Claim filed before ALC (C) New Delhi.

7. ⁠ ⁠Exhibit WW1/7 Copy of Appreciation letter dated 15.10.2013 (OSR).

8. ⁠ ⁠Exhibit WW1/8 Exhibit Copy of Appreciation letter dated 01.06.2015 (OSR).

Claimant put to the test of cross-examination by management No. 1, wherein he had admitted his appointment letter, Exhibit WW1/1, which was issued to him by management No. 2 i.e., Travel Food Services Pvt. Ltd. His attendance used to be marked by the management No.2. Management No. 1 never paid monthly wages to him. His salary slip used to be issued by the management No. 2. He has filed the entire claim against management No. 2. Management No. 2 was granted license by management No. 1 to develop, set up, operate, maintain and manage the F&B outlet for providing food and beverage to the passenger at IGI Airport. He admitted that he was working

under the supervision and control of management No. 2. He further admitted that his PF and ESI were deducted by the management No. 2. ESI card was also issued by management No. 2. He admitted that he was aware since the beginning that he was appointed on the role of the supervisor. He was promoted, but the work given to him was not of supervisor. He admitted that during the entire tenure of his employment, he worked for management No.

2. Management No. 1 also filed the affidavit in rebuttal. He has reiterated the fact about the non-existence of employer and employee relationship. Actually, he has given the license to the management No. 2 for purely commercial and independent core function of DIAL as an airport operator. His obligation is limited to managing, maintaining, and operating the airport. Licenses are only intended to provide facilities for passenger convenience at par with international airport standards. He has relied upon license agreement dated 06.02.2010. He was not cross-examined. Therefore, his evidence has been treated as admitted. Entire case of the claimant rest upon the premise that he has been appointed by the management No. 2 and worked with management No. 1. and his services have been terminated on 06.11.2017, without any rhyme and reason, by the respondent, without following the principle as set out in Sec. 25F of the Act. For this, he had relied upon the appointment letter, Exhibit WW1/1, which was issued by management No. 2 on 09.02.2012. Exhibit WW1/5, where he had made a complaint to the SHO, Police Station, IGI Airport, regarding the termination of his service after taking his resignation forcefully. While the respondent No.1 case rests upon the premise that there does not exist any employee and employer relationship between the claimant and him. He has referred to the portion of the cross-examination of the claimant, where the claimant has admitted that he was not appointed by the management No.1; his attendance used to be marked by management No.2; management No.1 paid monthly wages through him; salary slip used to be issued by the management No.2; Management No.2 was granted license by

management No.1 to develop, set up, operate, maintain and manage the F&B outlet for providing food and beverage to the passengers at IGI Airport. Therefore, he submitted that the management No.2 is only the licensee, and entire control and supervision of the service of the claimant was with the management No.2. So, management No.1 has made prayer that claim qua it be dismissed, as claimant failed to establish any employer and employee relationship. It is important to mention here that after filing of Written Statement Management No.2 has not appeared, so he was proceeded ex-parte. In the light of above evidence and argument, the issue is to be finally decided. Before proceeding further, the text of Section 25F and 25B 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 [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]. 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.]

From the above said sections, it is crystal clear that under industrial law, claimant has no absolute right to remain in the service of the management. Section 2(oo) of the Act provides five exceptions when retrenchment cannot be said to be illegal. First exception has been carved by the section itself when it says that “otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action”, meaning thereby when the workman was terminated as a punishment, it cannot come with the definition of the retrenchment. Other four exceptions are (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 on 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; Section 25F further submits that if the case has not come within the exception carved out in Section 2(oo), then also termination cannot be held illegal if the employer fulfills the condition as set out as set out in 25F. Now coming to the present case. Here, from the evidence and argument, admittedly, the workman is the employee of the management No.2. Because he admitted that he has been appointed by management No.2; appointment letter, Exhibit WW1/1, which was issued to him by management No.2; his attendance used to be marked by the management No.2; his salary slip used to be issued by the management No. 2; his PF and ESI were deducted by the management No. 2. Therefore, the question of existence of employer- employee relationship, goes in favor of the management No.1 and against the workman. Therefore, claim qua management No.1 stands dismissed. The next question arises whether the claimant’s service has been terminated illegally and unjustifiably. Claimant himself had admitted that he has completed five years of service. Management No.2 in the Written Statement has not denied the length of service, that is, appointment and date

of termination. His stand is that, firstly, Claimant does not come within the definition of the “workman”. Rather, he has been designated as supervisor. Secondly, he has tendered his resignation after he was confronted with the report of taking illegal gratification from the new recruits. However, on both counts, management No.2 fails to bring any evidence to substantiate their allegation. Mere bald averment in the Written Statement does not prove the fact averred by the management No.2. Workman has stated that though he has been designated as supervisor, but the work taken from him was that of a workman. Moreover, in the appointment letter dated 09.02.2012 (Exhibit WW1/1) it is clearly mentioned that claimant was appointed by management No.2 to the post of “KST Crew-Kitchen Steward”. Therefore, he is covered within the definition of workman under the Act. As none of the conditions set out in Section 25F has been fulfilled, therefore, termination of workman by management No.2 is held to be illegal, because, firstly, if it intended to retrench the claimant, then it should have given prior notice of at least one month, or in lieu of one month pay. Additionally, the management No.2 was also required to pay the retrenchment compensation of 15 days’ salary of each completed year of service. However, it failed to do so. Therefore, it is proved that the claimant’s services were retrenched illegally by management No.2. 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 molded 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 managements for almost five years. Therefore, when one’s services have been terminated then, one faces a lot of difficulty in finding a new Job. Given these circumstances when the claimant’s services were terminated in breach of section 25F of the Act, a lump sum compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Only) is considered an appropriate relief. Hence, management No.2 is hereby directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs 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: 01.10.2026

Presiding Officer

CGIT – cum – Labour Court – II