Sh. Rajesh Kumar & Ors vs Ministry of SKD on 9 September 2026

Sh. Rajesh Kumar & O6 Ors., Sh. Sanjay Kumar & Sh. Vicky, Sh. Vijay Kumar & 11 Ors. vs. DG of Training, Ministry of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM – LABOUR COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI I.D. No. 209/2019, 210/2019, 211/2019 Sh. Rajesh Kumar & O6 Ors., Sh. Sanjay Kumar & Sh. Vicky, Sh. Vijay Kumar & 11 Ors. vs. DG of Training, Ministry of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship

I.D. No. 209/2019 (Seven Workmen) S. No. Name Father’s Name Category Post Date of Joining Educational Qualification

Rajesh Kumar Narayan Singh O.B.C. Daily Wager (M.T.S.) 15.05.2001 10th Pass

Kanwar Pal Late Sh. Ram Phool S.C. Daily Wager (M.T.S.) 12.05.2006 10th Pass

Ramniwas Rishi Raj General Daily Wager (M.T.S.) 12.05.2008 10th Pass

Vedpal Om Prakash O.B.C. Daily Wager (M.T.S.) Jan-2007 10th Pass

Satish Kumar Bal Kishan O.B.C. Daily Wager (M.T.S.) Mar-2009 12th Pass

Harish Chand Dhamka S.C. Daily Wager (M.T.S.) 11.01.2010 12th Pass

Smt. Sheela D/o Sh. Ram Kishor S.C. Daily Wager (M.T.S.) 01.04.2012 8th Pass

I.D. No. 210/2019 (Two Workmen) S. No. Name Father’s Name Category Post Date of Joining Educational Qualification

Sanjay Kumar Chander Mohan O.B.C. Daily Wager (M.T.S.) 08.02.2013 B.A. Pass

Vicky Vinod Kumar S.C. Daily Wager (M.T.S.) 05.05.2014 9th Pass I.D. No. 211/2019 (Twelve Workmen) S. No. Name Father’s Name Category Post Date of Joining Educational Qualification

Sh. Rajesh Kumar & O6 Ors., Sh. Sanjay Kumar & Sh. Vicky, Sh. Vijay Kumar & 11 Ors. vs. DG of Training, Ministry of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship S. No. Name Father’s Name Category Post Date of Joining Educational Qualification

Vijay Kumar Late Babulal S.C. Daily Wager (M.T.S.) 19.07.2005 8th Pass

Ishwar Singh Rakhal Singh S.C. Daily Wager (M.T.S.) 04.06.2006 9th Pass

Krishan Singh Balbir Singh O.B.C. Daily Wager (M.T.S.) 06.11.2007 8th Pass

Narender Dal Singh O.B.C. Daily Wager (M.T.S.) 11.05.2010 12th Pass

Niraj Kumar Maha Singh S.C. Daily Wager (M.T.S.) 01.04.2011 10th Pass

Mohit Kumar Verma Pradeep Kumar O.B.C. Daily Wager (M.T.S.) 01.04.2011 12th Pass

Mahender Singh Parsadi Lal S.C. Daily Wager (M.T.S.) 13.04.2012 10th Pass

Ram Karan Jagannath O.B.C. Daily Wager (M.T.S.) 14.08.2012 10th Pass

Amit Kumar Rajak Rakesh Kumar S.C. Daily Wager (M.T.S.) 01.05.2013 10th Pass

Karan Rajender S.C. Daily Wager (M.T.S.) 17.04.2016 10th Pass

Kuldeep Kumar Ram Dass S.C. Daily Wager (M.T.S.) 01.06.2016 8th Pass

Rohit Kumar Verma Pradeep Verma O.B.C. Daily Wager (M.T.S.) 01.09.2016 12th Pass

…Workmen/Applicants/Claimants Versus

Directorate General of Training,

Ministry of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship, 2nd Floor, Employment Exchange Building Pusa, New Delhi-110012.

…Management/respondent Arguing counsels: For Applicant/ Claimant:

Sh. B.K. Prasad, Ld. AR (Now deceased).

For Management/ Respondent: Sh. Satish Kumar, Ld. AR.

Sh. Rajesh Kumar & O6 Ors., Sh. Sanjay Kumar & Sh. Vicky, Sh. Vijay Kumar & 11 Ors. vs. DG of Training, Ministry of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship Award 09.09.2026 The present disputes arise out of a common set of facts and have been filed under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), the details and particulars of the concerned workmen in each dispute are provided above in the memo of parties. It is the case of the workmen that they were engaged directly by the management as Daily Wagers (M.T.S.) on the dates mentioned in the said annexure and that each of them had completed more than 240 days of continuous service in each calendar year before their termination. It is submitted that during the pendency of conciliation proceedings before the Conciliation Officer (Central), the management acted in clear violation of the provisions of Sections 33, 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act. According to them, no prior permission or approval was sought from the Conciliation Officer before changing their service conditions or terminating their services. The workmen further submit that they are entitled to equal pay for equal work at par with their regular colleagues who are working directly under the management of M/s Directorate General of Training, Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship, and who are performing the same or similar duties. It is the case of the workmen that the management, vide its Order dated 11.06.2019, illegally changed their service conditions by directing them to work through a contractor, namely M/s Trio Intelligence Security, and to receive their wages through the said contractor. According to the workmen, the management violated Section 9A of the Act by changing their service condition and unlawfully assigned the contract to the M/s. Trio Intelligence Security (outsource agency) through GeM portal, without giving 21 days of Notice and this action of the management is illegal, unfair & unjustified. The workmen have relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Workmen of FCI v. Food Corporation of India (1985-II-LLJ-4), wherein it has been held that even the mode of payment of wages cannot be unilaterally changed and that induction of a contractor from direct employee to contract worker cannot be introduced for payment of their wages. It is contended that introduction of a contractor in the present cases was only a device to deny the legitimate status and benefits of the workmen and does not change their position as direct employees of the management. Lastly, the claimants asserted that the contractor engaged by the management neither

Sh. Rajesh Kumar & O6 Ors., Sh. Sanjay Kumar & Sh. Vicky, Sh. Vijay Kumar & 11 Ors. vs. DG of Training, Ministry of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship possessed a valid licence nor did the management obtain registration as required under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, rendering the entire contract arrangement sham, bogus and illegal. On these grounds, the workmen seek reinstatement with full back wages w.e.f. 08.07.2019, grant of equal pay for equal work as Group ‘D’/M.T.S. employees, regularisation of their services, and all consequential benefits. The management have taken a common stand in all the three disputes and have denied the claims raised by the workmen. It is stated that initially the Directorate General of Employment & Training (DGET), now known as the Directorate General of Training (DGT), was under the Ministry of Labour and Employment. Upon the formation of the Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship (MSDE), the training verticals and attached institutes under DGE&T were transferred to Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship vide Cabinet Secretariat Order dated 16.04.2015. Due to administrative reasons, the office of DGT was shifted from Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg to the CIRTUS Building near ITI Pusa Road, New Delhi. After shifting, certain support services such as cleaning, maintenance and assistance in routine office work became necessary, and therefore daily wagers were engaged from time to time on need basis. According to the management, some daily wagers were initially engaged from April 2001 and others between the years 2006 to 2012, on short-term contracts of three months each, which were extended from time to time purely on daily wage basis. It is asserted that there are about 54 daily wagers working in the Directorate and that they were paid wages at the minimum rates notified by the Government of NCT of Delhi, which were directly credited to their bank accounts. The management stated that the workmen were not appointed against sanctioned posts or that they had any right to continuity of service or regularisation. The management further submit that in view of Rule 149 of the General Financial Rules, 2017, the Government e-Market (GeM) portal was created to ensure transparency, efficiency and speed in public procurement. Accordingly, the engagement of 54 daily wagers (MTS) and 4 coolies for official work w.e.f. 01.06.2019 was assigned to M/s Trio Intelligence Security through the GeM portal. All daily wagers were asked to submit basic documents such as photographs, Aadhaar card and bank details to the outsourcing agency for registration on the GeM portal. Despite repeated reminders, the concerned workmen failed or

Sh. Rajesh Kumar & O6 Ors., Sh. Sanjay Kumar & Sh. Vicky, Sh. Vijay Kumar & 11 Ors. vs. DG of Training, Ministry of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship refused to submit the required documents within the stipulated time. As registration on the GeM portal was mandatory, and as the permission to engage daily wagers was valid only up to May 2019, the competent authority decided to discontinue their services w.e.f. 08.07.2019. The management assert that there was no termination in the legal sense, but only discontinuance upon expiry of the contractual arrangement. It is further stated that the workmen were engaged only as daily wagers on need basis, without any regular recruitment process, and therefore they cannot claim regularisation or parity of pay with regular employees. The management deny the claim of equal pay for equal work and submit that it is a well settled proposition of law that the pay scales of a class of employees are determined by the Central/state government keeping in view the qualifications, mode of recruitment, duties and responsibilities. The management further contend that the engagement of a contractor through the GeM portal was lawful and in accordance with Government policy, and that the management has no objection to the workmen being engaged through the agency if they comply with the mandatory requirements. Lastly, it is submitted that granting reinstatement, back wages or regularisation would be contrary to settled law, including the principles laid down in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi and Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 3595-3612 of 1999. On these grounds, the management prayed for dismissal of the claims filed by the workmen in all the three disputes. Rejoinder had been filed by the workmen where they denied the averment made by the management in its written statement and affirmed the averments in their respective claim statements. After completion of pleadings, the following issues were framed for adjudication on 26.03.2021:

i. Whether the proceeding is maintainable. ii. Whether the service of the workmen were illegally terminated during the pendency of an Industrial Dispute before the conciliation Officer in violation of section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. iii. If the procedure of the ID Act were not followed at the time of their termination. iv. To what relief the claimants are entitled to.

Sh. Rajesh Kumar & O6 Ors., Sh. Sanjay Kumar & Sh. Vicky, Sh. Vijay Kumar & 11 Ors. vs. DG of Training, Ministry of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship In order to prove their claims, the workmen examined themselves and filed their respective affidavits of evidence, the contents of which are almost same except for changes in names. They deposed that they raised industrial disputes before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central)-cum-Conciliation Officer, New Delhi on 04.06.2019 seeking regularisation of their services and equal pay for equal work. It is their case that during the pendency of conciliation proceedings, the management illegally changed their service conditions vide Office Order dated 11.06.2019 in violation of Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and thereafter terminated their services w.e.f. 08.07.2019 without obtaining prior permission under Section 33 of the Act. The workmen have asserted that they were engaged directly by the management, they refused to accept employment under the outsourcing agency, and that neither the management had registration nor the contractor possessed a valid licence under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, rendering the outsourcing arrangement illegal. It is further stated that their names were sponsored through the Employment Exchange, that they had rendered long and continuous service, and that their services were terminated without notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation, even though the work continued to exist and was handed over to a contractor. The workmen have contended that such termination is illegal and non est in law and have prayed for reinstatement with full back wages, continuity of service and all consequential benefits, stating that they remain unemployed and that the main disputes regarding regularisation and equal pay for equal work are still pending. During cross-examination by the management, the workmen admitted that at no point of time were they asked by the management to produce passport, Aadhaar card or photographs. They further admitted that they had never applied for any recruitment test conducted by the Staff Selection Commission and that their appointments were not made through SSC. It was admitted that their names were sponsored by the Employment Exchange and pursuant thereto they were engaged by the management, and they had worked with the management for the period mentioned in the table above. The workmen denied the suggestion that under any new or changed Government policy all manpower was required to be outsourced through contractors registered on the GeM portal, or the contractor was directed to retain the workers already working there. They also denied that they were asked to submit documents to the contractor and failed

Sh. Rajesh Kumar & O6 Ors., Sh. Sanjay Kumar & Sh. Vicky, Sh. Vijay Kumar & 11 Ors. vs. DG of Training, Ministry of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship to do so, leading to non-renewal of their services. It was further denied that other workmen who submitted documents are still working with the management. In rebuttal, Sh. Deepak Kumar, working as a Deputy Director with the management, appeared and filed his affidavit of evidence wherein he submitted that the Directorate General of Training was shifted to the CIRTES Building for administrative reasons and that certain support services became necessary for day-to-day functioning of the office, for which daily wagers were engaged from time to time on need basis and for short spells. He deposed that about 54 daily wagers and 4 coolies were working in the Directorate and that they were paid daily wages at the minimum rates notified by the Government of NCT of Delhi, which were credited directly into their bank accounts. He further stated that in terms of Rule 149 of the General Financial Rules, 2017, engagement of daily wagers w.e.f. 01.06.2019 was assigned to an outsourcing agency through the GeM portal and that the workmen were required to submit basic documents for registration with the agency, but they failed to do so despite reminders, leading to discontinuance of their engagement w.e.f. 08.07.2019. According to the deponent, such discontinuance was not a case of illegal retrenchment but was due to non-compliance with the GeM policy, which is a policy decision of the Government of India. He further stated that the workmen were engaged as daily wagers on need basis, not against sanctioned posts, without any regular recruitment process, and that there was no continuity of service. It was also submitted that the management is a Government department and not an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, that the workmen are not entitled to regularisation or parity of pay with regular employees, and that if the workmen comply with the GeM requirements, the management would have no objection to their engagement through the outsourcing agency. During cross-examination, Sh. Deepak Kumar was shown a two- page letter written by the Under Secretary, Ministry of Skill Development, which was marked as Mark-A, and the witness stated that he would verify the same from the record. The witness stated that a notice dated 11.06.2019 was issued to the workmen calling upon them to submit documents, and that the said notice was effective from that date. He further stated that the workmen were paid full salary for the month of June, 2019. The witness denied the suggestion that the letter dated 11.06.2019 was not a notice under the Industrial Disputes Act,

Sh. Rajesh Kumar & O6 Ors., Sh. Sanjay Kumar & Sh. Vicky, Sh. Vijay Kumar & 11 Ors. vs. DG of Training, Ministry of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship denied that no compensation was paid, and also denied the suggestion that the Government of India had not framed any policy for engaging manpower through contractors for work earlier performed by daily wagers. The cross-examination was thereafter deferred, and the witness was directed to place on record documents with respect to Mark-A. Subsequently, the Ld. AR for the management had submitted that the witness Sh. Deepak Kumar had proceeded on study leave for two years, rendering him unable to appear before the Tribunal. Thereafter, a cost of Rs. 5,000/- in each of these cases had also been imposed upon the management due to the continued absence of the witness. Later, the management had filed evidence by way of affidavit of another witness, Ms. Sonu Bhatia. During cross-examination, the she stated that he had knowledge of the case and denied that all the workmen were sponsored through the Employment Exchange. She admitted that no notice was given to the workmen prior to discontinuation of their services, explaining that the workmen were engaged for short spells of three months and were continued after artificial breaks of one day to several days, and therefore, according to her, no notice was required before their discontinuation. The witness further admitted that she had not produced any record relating to the actual working days of the workmen. She denied that there was no break at all in the services of the workmen. After conclusion of evidence, ld. AR for the workmen filed written submissions. The workmen reiterated the stand taken in their respective claim statements and evidence. It was stated that the present disputes are maintainable under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the management is an "industry" within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act, and that an employer-employee relationship existed between them as established from the pleadings as well as the evidence on record. It was further argued that during the pendency of conciliation proceedings, the management illegally altered the service conditions of the workmen by introducing the GeM-based outsourcing and thereafter terminated their services in violation of Section 33. It was further submitted that the termination of the workmen amounted to retrenchment and was illegal due to non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The workmen also contended that they were engaged for several years as daily wagers which amounted to unfair

Sh. Rajesh Kumar & O6 Ors., Sh. Sanjay Kumar & Sh. Vicky, Sh. Vijay Kumar & 11 Ors. vs. DG of Training, Ministry of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship labour practice within the meaning of Section 2(ra) of the Act. In support of their submissions, the claimants relied upon various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts, including Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd., Workmen of Food Corporation of India, State Bank of India v. N. Sundara Money, D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd., Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. and ONGC Ltd. v. Petroleum Coal Labour Union. It was lastly prayed that the claims be allowed by directing reinstatement with continuity of service, full back wages and all consequential benefits. Ld. AR for the management also filed written submissions and substantially reiterated the stand taken in the written statement and the evidence led on behalf of the management. It was contended that the Directorate General of Training is a Government Department and not an "industry" within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that the claimants, being daily wagers engaged on need basis for short spells, neither had any right to regularisation nor could claim parity of pay with regular employees. It was further submitted that the engagement of manpower through the GeM portal was a policy decision of the Government of India taken in terms of Rule 149 of the General Financial Rules, 2017, and that all daily wagers were required to submit the requisite documents to the outsourcing agency for registration. According to the management, despite repeated opportunities, the claimants failed to comply with the said requirement, resulting in discontinuance of their engagement. It was, therefore, argued that the present case was not one of illegal retrenchment but of discontinuance on account of the claimants' refusal to join the outsourcing agency. It was further contended that the claimants had not been appointed against sanctioned posts through any regular recruitment process and, therefore, were not entitled to regularisation or equal pay for equal work. Reliance was placed upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India and Government of West Bengal v. Tarun K. Roy, as well as the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 07.11.2023, in support of the submissions. Accordingly, it was prayed that the claims be dismissed. The case of the claimants rests on the premise that they were directly engaged by the management as daily wagers and had rendered continuous service for several years. It is their contention that during the

Sh. Rajesh Kumar & O6 Ors., Sh. Sanjay Kumar & Sh. Vicky, Sh. Vijay Kumar & 11 Ors. vs. DG of Training, Ministry of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship pendency of conciliation proceedings, the management altered their service conditions by directing them to work through an outsourcing agency engaged through the GeM portal and thereafter terminated their services without complying with the mandatory provisions of Sections 9A, 25F, 25G, 25H and 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Accordingly, they contend that the alleged termination is illegal and they are entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service, back wages and other consequential benefits. On the other hand, the whole case of the management rests on the premise that the engagement of manpower through the GeM portal was a policy decision of the Government of India taken in terms of Rule 149 of the General Financial Rules, 2017, which was binding upon the management. The claimants, who were merely daily wagers engaged on need basis, failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of registration with the outsourcing agency by submitting the requisite documents despite multiple opportunities. Therefore, it is contended that there was no illegal termination or retrenchment and that the discontinuance of the claimants' engagement was only on account of their own failure to comply with the GeM policy. However, this contention of the management does not hold merit. The GeM policy, being an administrative policy for procurement of manpower could not override the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The management was required to follow the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act before implementing the GeM policy in respect of the existing workmen. This Tribunal is of the view that the GeM policy could have been implemented prospectively by engaging future contractual manpower through the GeM portal. However, the services of the claimants who were already working under the management could not have been discontinued only because they did not register themselves with the contractor. Their current engagement could not be changed by compelling them to work through an outsourcing agency. The management could not take benefit of the the GeM policy to deny the claimants the statutory protection available to them under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In this regard, it is relevant to quote a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. AIR 1967 SC 1910 (also cited as (1967) 1 SCR 906) where it was held that:

Sh. Rajesh Kumar & O6 Ors., Sh. Sanjay Kumar & Sh. Vicky, Sh. Vijay Kumar & 11 Ors. vs. DG of Training, Ministry of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship It is true that the Government cannot amend or supersede statutory rules by administrative instructions, but if the rules are silent on any particular point the Government can fill up the gaps and supplement the rules and issue instructions not inconsistent with the rules already framed. Recently, in the matter of State of Tripura & Ors. v. Tripura State Forest Service Recruitment Board & Ors., 2025 INSC 1049, the Supreme Court reiterated the principles laid down in Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, and held that: Executive instructions issued under Article 166(1) of the Constitution of India cannot override the act done under the statute and the rules made thereunder. The executive instructions can only supplement the provisions of the act and the rules in case of any ambiguity or if gaps are to be filled but such executive instructions cannot supplant the specific provisions which already occupy the field.

In light of the above discussion, my issue-wise findings are as follows: Issue no.-1

From the pleadings and evidence on record, this Tribunal finds no merit in the objection regarding maintainability. The management itself has admitted that the claimants were engaged by it as daily wagers and had been discharging duties under its control and supervision. The disputes pertain to alleged illegal termination of service and are, therefore, fall within the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Accordingly, the present proceedings are held to be maintainable. Issue no.-2 and 3 Before proceeding further, the language of Section 2(oo), which defines the term 'retrenchment', and Section 25F of the Act, which sets out the conditions to be complied with by an employer before retrenching a workman, is required to be reproduced herein: [(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—

Sh. Rajesh Kumar & O6 Ors., Sh. Sanjay Kumar & Sh. Vicky, Sh. Vijay Kumar & 11 Ors. vs. DG of Training, Ministry of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship (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;] 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]. From the perusal of the above sections, it is clear that in industrial law, there is no absolute protection given to the claimant/workman against retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. An employee can be retrenched by an employer if certain conditions are fulfilled. The first exception has been provided within the definition itself, namely when a workman is terminated by way of disciplinary action. Other exceptions include voluntary retirement, superannuation as per contract, non-renewal or termination of a contract on its expiry, and termination due to continued ill-health. From the pleadings and evidence on record, it stands established that the claimants had been working with the management as daily wagers for several years. The case of the management is that upon

Sh. Rajesh Kumar & O6 Ors., Sh. Sanjay Kumar & Sh. Vicky, Sh. Vijay Kumar & 11 Ors. vs. DG of Training, Ministry of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship introduction of the GeM policy, the claimants were required to submit certain documents to the outsourcing agency for registration. According to the management, since the claimants failed to comply with the said requirement, their services were discontinued w.e.f. 08.07.2019. Therefore, it is admitted that the services of the claimants were terminated by the management. The management has neither pleaded nor proved that the discontinuance of the services of the claimants is covered by any of the exceptions under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, the discontinuance of their services amounts to retrenchment as defined under Section 2(oo) of the Act. If the management intended to retrench the claimant, it was required to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Act by giving one month’s prior notice or wages in lieu thereof. Additionally, the management was also required to pay retrenchment compensation equivalent to 15 days’ average pay for every completed year of continuous service. However, there is nothing on record to show that before discontinuing the services of the claimants, the management had complied with the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Act. On the contrary, the management witness, Ms. Sonu Bhatia, admitted during cross-examination that no notice was given to the claimants prior to discontinuation of their services. There is nothing on record to show that retrenchment compensation was paid to any of the claimants at the time of their termination. Non-compliance with the mandatory conditions prescribed under Section 25F of the Act renders the retrenchment illegal and unjustified. Accordingly, the termination of the services of the claimants are held to be illegal and unjustified. Further, it is also an admitted position that on the date the services of the claimants were discontinued, the conciliation proceedings initiated by them were pending before the Conciliation Officer. The management has not placed anything on record to show that it had obtained the permission or approval before discontinuing their services. Therefore, the action of the management is also in violation of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Issue No. 4

Sh. Rajesh Kumar & O6 Ors., Sh. Sanjay Kumar & Sh. Vicky, Sh. Vijay Kumar & 11 Ors. vs. DG of Training, Ministry of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship In view of the findings on Issues No. 2 and 3, this Tribunal is of the view that the termination of the services of the claimants is illegal and unjustified and is liable to be set aside. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to be reinstated in service with continuity of service. Further, the management has failed to place any material on record to establish that the claimants were gainfully employed elsewhere after their termination. The judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) & Ors., (2013) 10 SCC 324 is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of these cases, where it was held that:

38.1. In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule.

38.3. Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting back wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or the court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages, then it has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the employee/workman was gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she was drawing prior to the termination of service. This is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof of the existence of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averment about its existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the employee shows that he was not employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically plead and prove that the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same or substantially similar emoluments.” In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in the absence of any evidence regarding the gainful employment of the claimants, the claimants are also entitled to full back wages. Moreover, the management is directed to pay the back wages within two months from the date of publication of this Award, failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the Award till its realization. It has already been held while deciding Issues No. 2 and 3 that the management cannot compel the claimants, who were already working under its direct engagement, to work through an outsourcing agency only on account of the introduction of the GeM policy. Accordingly, the management is directed to reinstate the claimants on the same terms and conditions on which they were working immediately before their

Sh. Rajesh Kumar & O6 Ors., Sh. Sanjay Kumar & Sh. Vicky, Sh. Vijay Kumar & 11 Ors. vs. DG of Training, Ministry of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship termination, i.e., under the direct engagement of the management and not through any outsourcing contractor. It is further directed that if permanent posts are available in future, the management shall consider the claimants for regularization against permanent posts, in accordance with the applicable rules and policy, if vacancies arise in future. A copy of this Award be sent to the Appropriate Government for notification under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The file be consigned to the Record Room.

ATUL KUMAR GARG

Dated 09.09.2026

Presiding Officer

CGIT – cum – Labour Court – II