Sh. Mukesh Kumar vs National Insurance company Ltd & Ors on 8 September 2026

1. The Zonal Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Muzaffarnagar.

2. The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Saharanpur, U.P.

…Management/respondent

Counsels: For Applicant/ Claimant: Sh. Vijay Pal, Ld. AR.

For Management/ Respondent: Sh. B.S. Rana, Ld. AR.

Award 08.09.2026

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-17011/10/2008-IR (M) dated 18.02.2009

has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer, that is the Management of National Insurance Company Ltd. and their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal, terms of which are as under: “Whether the action of the management of National Insurance Company Ltd., in terminating/disengaging shri Mukesh Kumar S/o Sh. Nakli Ram, employed at Saharanpur Branch as part time sweeper, w.e.f. 27/4/2005 is legal and justified? To what relief the concerned workman is entitled and from which date?”

2. In response to the reference, claimant has filed his claim statement. He claims to have been appointed as Part Time Sweeper from 02.07.1999 with the respondent. He did his work with honesty and diligently and has not given any complaint to the respondent for his work. It is his case that though he has been given the name of Part Time Sweeper (PTS), however, the work has been taken in whole of the time. His service has been terminated on 27.04.2005 without any rhyme or reason which is illegal. It is further his plea that the respondent has appointed Sh. Ramesh Kumar, the Part Time Sweeper working at Yamuna Nagar Branch and transferred to the Saharanpur Branch after regularizing him. Hence, he filed the present claim.

3. Respondent herein has filed the written statement. It has firstly stated that National Insurance Company Ltd. (respondent herein) is engaged in the business of under-writing of general insurance. The said work is being carried on by it through its various branches and divisional offices. These divisional offices and branch offices are controlled by Regional offices. Saharanpur Branch of the company falls under the Divisional Office at Muzaffarnagar, U.P. In the year 1999, some work of casual nature i.e. sanitation, cleanliness of premises arose in the branch offices. For carrying out the said work, the company used to engage persons on casual basis for few hours. In September, 1999 the claimant offered to carry out cleaning of the Saharanpur Branch every day and for the said work amount agreed used to be paid. The said work used to be carried out within a period of two hours. He was being paid for the quantum of work done by him. He was never hired as an employee. It is the

case of the respondent that vide its notice dated 11.01.2005, invited applications from the part time employees for filling up a few posts of full time sweeper including in Saharanpur Branch. Claimant vide his application dated 02.02.2005 applied for the said post along with other candidates. Claimant went through the process of selection but was not selected. On Para-wise reply, he has denied each and everything. He admitted that the claimant has moved an application to the Conciliation Officer on 17.04.2007 and he had replied. He submitted that claim 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. Since the issues have not been framed, terms of reference is taken as issue.

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, Ex. WW1/2 and Ex. WW1/5: Copies of letter dated 25.09.2002, 20.06.2003 and 30.09.2003 sent by Sh. K.K. Aggarwal, Senior Branch Manager to Divisional Branch Manager, Divisional Office, Muzaffarnagar regarding regularization of Sh. Mukesh Kumar as permanent PTS.

(ii) Ex. WW1/3: Copy of letter dated 07.07.2003 sent by Sh. K.K. Aggarwal, Senior Branch Manager to Divisional Branch Manager, Divisional Office, Muzaffarnagar regarding regularization Sh. Mukesh Kumar as permanent PTS and request for enhancement of his monthly wages & minimum Rs. 50/- per day.

(iii) Ex. WW1/4: Copy of letter dated 08.07.2003 sent by M.M.S. Beg, Divisional Manager to Sr. Branch Manager, Saharanpur regarding enhancement of monthly wages of Sh. Mukesh Kumar, Sweeper.

(iv) Ex. WW1/6: Copy of letter dated 01.10.2003 sent by Divisional Manager to Branch Manager, Saharanpur.

(v) Ex. WW1/7 and Ex. WW1/8: Copies of letter dated 21.06.2004 and 16.07.2004 sent by K.K. Aggarwal, Senior Branch Manager to Divisional Office, Muzaffarnagar regarding regularization of Sh. Mukesh Kumar as permanent PTS.

(vi) Ex. WW1/9: Copy of letter dated 14.12.2004 sent by Sh. S.C. Thakur, Branch Manager to Divisional Manager, Muzaffarnagar regarding regularization of Sh. Mukesh Kumar as permanent PTS.

(vii) Ex. WW1/10: Copy of letter dated 02.02.2005 sent by Sh. S.C. Thakur, Branch Manager to Divisional Manager regarding appointment of part time sweepers on full time basis.

(vii) Ex. WW1/11: Copy of letter dated 13.03.2005 sent by Sanjay Goel, Unit Secretary, GIEANZ, Saharanpur to Com. Jamna Kumar Dutta Ji, Joint Secretary, GIEANZ, Dehradun Regional Office, Dehradun regarding appointment of part time sweepers on full time basis in Saharanpur Branch.

(ix) Ex. WW1/12: Copy of letter dated 27.04.2005 sent by S.C. Thakur, Branch Manager to Sh. M.M.S Beg, Divisional Manager, Muzaffarnagar regarding withdrawal of services of Sh. Mukesh Kumar.

(x) Ex. WW1/13: Copy of letter dated 21.06.2005 sent by Mukesh Kumar to Branch Manager, Saharanpur.

(xi) Ex. WW1/14: Copy of letter dated 23.06.2005 sent by the Branch Manager to Divisional Office, Muzaffarnagar regarding representation from Mukesh Kumar working as Sweeper in their branch since 25.07.1999.

(xii) Ex. WW1/15: Copy of letter dated 15.07.2005 sent by the Sanjay Goel, Unit Secretary, GIEA. N.Z to the Regional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Office, Dehradun regarding

(xiii) Ex. WW1/16: Copy of letter dated 16.08.2005 sent by the Sanjay Goel, Unit Secretary, GIEA. N.Z to the Regional Manager, National

Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Office, Dehradun regarding regularize the service of Sh. Mukesh Kumar as F.T.S.

(xiv) Ex. WW1/17: Copy of letter dated 09.08.2005 sent by Sh. Mukesh Kumar to Branch Manager, NICL, 2/844, Court Road, Saharanpur.

(xv) Ex. WW1/18: Copy of letter dated 05.12.2006 sent by the Sanjay Goel, Unit Secretary, GIEA. N.Z to the Regional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Office, Dehradun regarding regularize the service of Sh. Mukesh Kumar as F.T.S. (colly.- 2 pages)

(xvi) Ex. WW1/19: Copy of letter dated 15.01.2006 sent by the Sanjay Goel, Unit Secretary, GIEA. N.Z to the Regional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Office, Dehradun regarding

(xvii) Ex. WW1/20: Copy of savings bank deposit pass book of Sh. Mukesh Kumar. (colly.- 15 pages)

(xviii) Ex. WW1/21: Copy of vouchers issued by the management to Mukesh Kumar. (colly.- 6 pages)

(xix) Ex. WW1/22: Copy of bank statement of Sh. Mukesh Kumar for the period.

(xx) Ex. WW1/23: Copy of claim filed by Sanjay Goyal, Unit Secretary, GIEA. N.Z, before the Regional Conciliation Officer (Central) Dehradun, Uttarakhand.

(xxi) Ex. WW1/24: Copy of written statement filed by the management before conciliation officer.

(xxii) Ex. WW1/25: Copy of employment exchange registration.

7. Workman was put to the test of cross-examination where he had denied any advertisement issued for the post of part time sweeper in any newspaper. His name was not sponsored by any employment exchange. He admitted to have moved an application dated 07.09.1999 for the post of sweeper and the same is Ex. WW1/M1. He had also admitted to have moved another

application dated 03.07.2001 which is Ex. WW1/M2. He has submitted his Bio- date dated 20.02.2005 to the management which is Ex. WW1/M3. He did not dispute the other documents filed by the management in this case. He admitted that in the year January, 2005 a post of sweeper was vacant in the management and the management invited applications for the same. He and many others including Sh. Ramesh Kumar applied for the same and after completion of the selection process, Sh. Ramesh Kumar was appointed by the management but he was not appointed.

8. Workman has examined one more witness i.e. Sh. Sanjay Goyal (WW2). He deposed that he was the member of the working committee of the union and he was well aware about the fact. He further deposed regarding the employment of the workman from July, 1999 to 26.05.2005. He submitted that union has issued various letters to the respondent for regularisation of the employee but the management did not response. He further deposed that workman’s services were terminated and in his place employee Ramesh Kumar was appointed.

9. In rebuttal, management has also examined one witness Sh. Anish Kumar Narad (Assistant Manager). He has reiterated the facts as mentioned in his written statement. He further deposed that Rule 9 of the recruitment rules provides that entire recruitment to the post of subordinate staff including drivers will be done from the candidates recommended by the employment exchange. In the year 1999, some work of sweeper viz., sanitation, cleanliness was needed and the claimant was offered job for cleaning at Saharanpur branch office, for this, he has exhibited the documents Ex. MW1/1 and Ex. MW1/2 respectively. Remaining facts, he deposed regarding the vacancy and recruitment of Sh. Ramesh Kumar.

10. Witness was put to the test of cross-examination where he has admitted that no appointment letter was ever issued to the workman. He admitted that claimant had joined in their establishment on 07.09.1999 which is Ex. WW1/M1. He further admitted that management maintains the register of its own employees. He also admitted that before termination of the service of the claimant, no domestic enquiry was conducted against him. He voluntarily

admitted that domestic enquiry was usually done against the regular employees of the management. He admitted that when the service of the claimant was brought to an end no notice of termination, notice pay or termination compensation was paid to him. He further admitted the document Ex. WW1/9 is a letter written by the branch manager to the Divisional Office of the management requesting regularization of the claimant wherein his performance has been described as satisfactory.

11. I have heard the argument at bar, perused the record and analyze the evidence brought by the parties. Entire case of the workman rests upon the premise that he has worked with the respondent as sweeper for whole time, though, he has been given the designation as part time sweeper and his services has been terminated illegally and unlawfully. For this, he has relied upon various documents.

12. Claimant has relied upon the judgment Jasmer Singh vs. State of Haryana MANU/SC/0026/2015, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, where it was held that: “Non-compliance of procedure- Termination-Validity thereof- Section 25F, 25G and 25H of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947- High Court set aside order of Tribunal wherein Tribunal set aside order of termination passed against Appellant-workman and awarded reinstatement- Hence, present appeal- Whether impugned order pertaining to termination was rightly set aside- Held, issuance of neither notice nor notice pay and payment of retrenchment compensation to Appellant were not complied with- Therefore, Labour Court had correctly held that termination of services of workman was illegal-Finding of fact that workman had worked for more than 240 days in calendar year and termination order was void ab initio in law for non-compliance of Sections 25F (Clauses (a) and (b) ), 25G and 25H of Act”.

13. Further, he relied upon the judgment of Delhi Cantonment Board vs. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal and Ors. MANU/DE/8297/2006, wherein it was held that:

“Termination of temporary employee claimed to be probationer-There is no distinction between permanent employee and a temporary employee- Termination of service without complying with provisions of Section 25F, held to be illegal”.

14. While the respondent’s case rests upon the premise that there were the recruitment rules of the management which is required to be followed. His case is that claimant was working only as Part Time Sweeper in Saharanpur Branch and in the year 2005, management had advertised for the post of regular sweeper. Workman had also participated but he was not selected. One Sh. Ramesh Kumar was selected and he was posted at Saharanpur Branch where the workman had worked. He had relied for Ravi Kumar Rai & Ors. vs. Dinesh Kumar Pandey & Ors., (2015) 11 SCC 493, decided on 11th, May, 2015, wherein it was held that challenging to selection process after participating in interview and declaration of adverse result, petition is not maintainable. He further relied upon the judgment of State of Maharashtra and Another vs. R.S. Bhonde and Ors., (2005) 6 SCC 751, decided on 17th, August, 2005, wherein it is held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that effect of continuation in temporary post, permanency cannot be granted when there is no post.

15. Before proceeding further, the texts of Section 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. Here, the management did not do anything.

17. Judgment relied by the respondent is bereft of merit. Counsel for the claimant has not challenged the selection process after participating in interview. He has claimed about his illegal termination of the post of the Sweeper which he has worked for six years continuously which is a violation of industrial law. He further has not claimed for regularization. His claim is that his disengagement was illegal and in violation of Section 25-F, G, and H of the Act.

18. In the present case, both the parties have admitted that workman has done his duty from 1999 to 2005. The work of the claimant was satisfactory and for this the management had written the various letters to their senior to regularize him as full time sweeper. Above said fact has been buttressed from the Ex. WW1/1 to Ex. WW1/15 i.e. the letter written by Sh. K.K Aggarwal Senior Branch Manager to Divisional Office regarding regularization of the workman. There is no dispute that the workman had not performed 240 days in a calendar year. It is further not in dispute that no notice or notice pay or

retrenchment compensation equivalent to the 15 days of average pay have been paid.

19. Industrial law does not differentiate between the part time sweeper and the full time sweeper. The condition is only that the workman did the job continuously for 240 days in a calendar year. Further, no absolute right was given to the workman against his termination, but, it is subject to the fulfillment of the certain condition as prescribed under section 25-F of the Act. Admittedly, management had not followed any of the condition before retrenching the services of the workman.

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 six 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. 7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lac Only) is considered as an appropriate relief. Hence, management is hereby directed to pay compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven 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: 08.09.2026

ATUL KUMAR GARG

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