W.P.(C)/7513/2017 of M/S EX SERVICEMEN S ARILINK TRANSPORT SERVICES (P) LTD Vs GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS on 30 July 2026

O R D E R

%

30.07.2026

1. By the present petition, the petitioner challenges the award dated 01.02.2017 (hereafter ‘impugned award’) passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court No. 1, Karkardooma Court Complex, Delhi in ID No. 138/2013 whereby the learned Tribunal holding that the respondent workman had not abandoned his job and finding the termination to be illegal, had awarded compensation for a sum of ₹3 lakh to Respondent No. 2/workman.

2. By order dated 29.08.2017, this Court had stayed the operation of the impugned award subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of ₹2

lakh in the form of an FDR with the Registrar General of this Court.

3. Briefly stated, Respondent No. 2/workman was initially engaged as a security guard with the petitioner management on 19.10.2006. The respondent workman is stated to have worked on contract basis with multiple institutions in different spells till he purportedly submitted an application on 09.09.2012 requesting double duty from the petitioner management and denied to perform a single duty.

4. It is the case of the petitioner management that after the request for double duty was declined, Respondent No. 2/workman himself abandoned his job and refused to perform single duty.

5. Thereafter, in the industrial dispute raised by the workman, the learned Tribunal found that Respondent No. 2/workman was in continuous employment with the petitioner agency since November 2006 till his purported abandonment in 09.09.2012. It was noted that no show cause notice was issued to Respondent No. 2/workman regarding the voluntary abandonment of his job. Consequently, in the absence of any proof highlighting voluntary abandonment, and in the absence of any notice or retrenchment compensation, the learned Tribunal found the termination to be illegal as per Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘ID Act’) and directed payment of ₹3 lakh as lump sum compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner management has preferred the present petition.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner management submits that the impugned award is perverse and is liable to be set aside. He submits that Respondent No. 2/workman had himself abandoned his job after claiming double duty which is impermissible. He submits that since Respondent No. 2/workman himself voluntarily abandoned his job, there is no question of illegal termination or applicability of retrenchment compensation in terms of Section 25F of the ID Act.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for Respondent No. 2/workman submits that the impugned award is well reasoned and warrants no interference by this Court. He submits that the petitioner management failed to prove that Respondent No. 2/workman had abandoned his job.

8. I have heard the counsel and perused the record.

9. At the outset, it is relevant to note that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is limited and the Court is not entitled to act as an Appellate Court. This Court cannot review or reweigh the evidence and jurisdiction to issue a writ is essentially a supervisory jurisdiction to ensure that the inferior Tribunals have acted within their jurisdiction [Ref. Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das : (2023) 16 SCC 462].

10. Having noted thus, adverting now to the merits of the present case, it is the case of the petitioner management that Respondent No. 2/workman submitted a letter dated 09.09.2012 requesting double duty and thereafter upon the request being declined, the Respondent No. 2/workman himself abandoned his job. It has consequently been urged that in view of the same, there is no question of illegal termination and payment of retrenchment compensation as per Section 25F of the ID Act.

11. The stance of the petitioner management though appears attractive at first blush, cannot be countenanced in the facts of the present case.

12. Pertinently, as noted by the learned Tribunal, the salary slips as well as the ID cards attested by Respondent No. 2/workman plainly manifested that Respondent No. 2/workman was in continuous employment with the petitioner management since November 2006 and the workman was not engaged against any particular work or task by the management. Further, as noted by the learned Tribunal even though abandonment was urged on behalf of the petitioner management, there was no material on record to suggest that any show cause notice or letter was ever issued to Respondent No. 2/workman pertaining to his voluntary abandonment and that Respondent No. 2/workman failed to join work despite service of such notice. As rightly appreciated by the learned Tribunal, a bald plea of abandonment in the dearth of any notice or evidence to fortify the same is meritless and does not establish that the workman had voluntarily abandoned the job.

13. Consequently, when the plea of abandonment could not be established, as rightly appreciated by the learned Tribunal, the failure of the petitioner management to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 25F of the ID Act by not issuing any notice of termination, notice pay or retrenchment compensation, would make the termination illegal. In such circumstances, the finding that the termination of Respondent No. 2/workman was illegal warrants no interference.

14. Further, considering that four years had elapsed after the termination of Respondent No. 2/workman, the learned Tribunal rightly awarded a lump sum compensation of ₹3 lakh in lieu of reinstatement.

15. As noted above, interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is warranted only where the decision is demonstrably arbitrary or perverse.

16. In the facts of the present case, no such perversity or arbitrariness has been pointed out so as to warrant the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

17. Accordingly, in view of the above, it is directed that the amount already deposited by the petitioner management with the Registrar General of this Court pursuant to the order dated 29.08.2017 be released to Respondent No.2 along with all accrued interest.

18. The remaining amount is directed to be paid to Respondent No. 2 by the petitioner management within a period of four weeks from date.

19. The present petition is dismissed in the aforesaid terms. AMIT MAHAJAN, J JULY 30, 2026 DU