Thermoking vs Rashtriya Gen.Maz.Union - Delhi High Court Case

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 15, Cited by 0 ] ### Delhi High Court

M/S.Thermoking vs P.O.& Rashtriya Gen.Maz.Union on 24 March, 2026

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 13.01.2026
Date of decision: 24.03.2026
Uploaded on: 24.03.2026
+ W.P.(C) 3083/2003, CM APPL. 13453/2004, CM APPL. 13454/2004,
CM APPL. 3769/2005, CM APPL. 6331/2006, CM APPL. 2862/2010
M/S.THERMOKING .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashim Vachher, Sr. Advocate
with Ms. Saiba M. Rajpal, Mr.
Vinayak, Advs.
versus

                                P.O.& RASHTRIYA GEN.MAZ.UNION                    .....Respondent
                                              Through: None
                                CORAM:
                                HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN
                                                 JUDGMENT SHAIL JAIN, J.

1. The instant Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner, M/s Thermoking, through its Proprietor Shri Pradeep Khanna, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking quashing of the Award dated 20.08.2002 passed by the learned Labour Court No. IV, Karkardooma Courts, Shahdara, Delhi in Industrial Dispute bearing No. 222/91 (hereinafter 'Impugned award'). The said dispute arose between the Management of M/s Thermoking and its workmen represented through Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union (Regd.), wherein the Labour Court held that the services of the workmen had been terminated illegally and Signature Not Verified Signed By:KAPIL W.P.(C) 3083/2003 Page 1 of 28 KUMAR Signing Date:24.03.2026 16:10:55 unjustifiably and accordingly directed their reinstatement along with back wages.

BRIEF FACTS:

1.    The Petitioner is a proprietorship concern engaged in the manufacture
                     of electrical appliances having its factory situated at A-24, Phase-I, Naraina
                     Industrial Area, New Delhi. Respondent Nos. 3 to 12 were employed with
                     the Petitioner during different times in various capacities and were members
                     of Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union/Respondent No. 2.
   

2.    The Respondent/workmen, however, through Respondent No.2 vide
                     letter dated 05.11.1990 addressed to the Labour Inspector, contended that
                     they had been illegally refused employment and that their services had been
                     terminated without compliance with law. They requested the Labour
                     Inspector to direct the management to take workers back into service and
                     also sought intervention of the Labour Inspector for being allowed to
                     perform their duties and for payment of earned wages etc. Consequently, the
                     Labour Inspector directed the workmen to be present at the factory gate on
                     6.11.1990.
   

3.    On 06.11.1990, when the workmen reported at the factory, an incident
                     took place at the factory premises, following which complaints were lodged
                     by the management and also by the workmen with the police authorities.
                     Pursuant thereto, a meeting was convened before the Assistant
                     Commissioner of Police (A.C.P.), Naraina, in the presence of the Union
                     leader, Sh. Pyare Lal, and the representatives of the Petitioner. In the said
                     meeting, a settlement was reached between the management and Sh. Pyare
                     Lal on behalf of the workmen, whereby, it was agreed that the workmen
                     would resume their duties with effect from 28.11.1990 and would be paid Signature Not Verified Signed By:KAPIL                W.P.(C) 3083/2003                                                Page 2 of 28 KUMAR Signing Date:24.03.2026 16:10:55 8.33% bonus along with their salary for the month of October, 1990. Sh.
                     Pyare Lal also assured that all the workmen would report for duties on the
                     agreed date. According to the Petitioner, however, the workmen did not
                     report for duty despite the said settlement, whereas the workmen alleged that
                     they were prevented by the Petitioner itself from resuming their duties.
   

4.    As alleged by the Petitioner, in the year 1990, particularly with effect
                     from 02.11.1990, the Respondent/workmen stopped reporting for duty
                     without proper intimation or any sanctioned leave. In pursuance to which,
                     the Petitioner addressed a letter dated 01.12.1990 to The Rashtriya Hazdoor
                     Union/Respondent No. 2 complaining about the continued absence of
                     workmen without any notice despite the settlement before the A.C.P. &
                     calling upon the workmen, for the last time to resume their duties within
                     three days.
   

5.    Thereafter, the Respondent/workmen approached the 'appropriate
                     government' (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) raising an industrial dispute
                     complaining about the conduct of the Petitioner, pursuant to which
                     Conciliation proceedings were initiated before the Conciliation Officer.
                     During the conciliation proceedings held on 17.01.1991, the Petitioner
                     expressed its willingness to take workmen back on duties without any
                     condition and on the same pay & other benefits as they were receiving
                     earlier. However, workmen did not resume their duties, and, consequently,
                     the conciliation proceedings ultimately failed.
   

6.    Consequently, by reference dated 18.06.1991, the industrial dispute
                     was referred by Secretary (Labour) Delhi Administration, Delhi for
                     adjudication of the dispute to Labour Court-IV, Delhi, and was registered as
                     ID No. 222/91. The terms of reference were:
   

Signature Not Verified Signed By:KAPIL W.P.(C) 3083/2003 Page 3 of 28 KUMAR Signing Date:24.03.2026 16:10:55

"Whether the services of S/Shri Kamal Kant, Madan
Lal, Ram Vichan, Bhavender, Shankar, Ramu,
Baleshwar, Prabhu Nath, Sumant, Bisram and Ram
Kishore have been terminated illegally and/or
unjustifiably by the management, and if so, to what
relief are they entitled and what directions are
necessary in this respect?"
8. Before the Labour Court, the Petitioner pleaded that the workmen had
abandoned their services on their own will and were gainfully employed
elsewhere, whereas the workmen alleged that their services had been
illegally terminated. In the Statement of Claim, the Respondent/workmen
further contended that the management had failed to provide statutory
benefits, including appointment letters, minimum wages, bonus, and other
service entitlements, and that the dispute arose when such benefits were
demanded by them. Evidence was led by both sides. Shortly before the
pronouncement of the Award, the Petitioner filed an application dated
20.08.2002 seeking to place on record additional material regarding the
alleged gainful employment of the workmen; however, the said application
was not adjudicated separately. Consequently, the Labour Court on the basis
of the pleadings and evidence(s) led by the parties vide 'Impugned award'
held the termination to be illegal and directed reinstatement with back
wages. The said order reads as under:

"Even if, for sake of arguments, we assume the stand of
management correct, then, at least, workmen can be
held to be guilty of abandoning the job. Abandonment
is the specie of mis-conduct and for that management
was duty bound to hold proper enquiry.- Admittedly
neither any charge-sheet was issued, nor, any enquiry
was held. I have, thus, no hesitation in holding that Signature Not Verified Signed By:KAPIL W.P.(C) 3083/2003 Page 4 of 28 KUMAR Signing Date:24.03.2026 16:10:55 services of the workmen were terminated illegally and
unjustifiably. They are directed to be reinstated. They
shall be entitled to wages at the rate prescribed under Minimum Wages Act for the intervening period.
Reference is answered accordingly."
9. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner filed the present Writ petition. The
operation of the Impugned award was initially stayed vide order dated
19.05.2003; however, the said stay was subsequently vacated vide order
dated 02.11.2004, and the Petition itself was dismissed for non-prosecution.
The petition was thereafter restored to its original position vide order dated
08.04.2005. It is pertinent to note that during the pendency of the present
proceedings, the Respondent/workmen did not appear on several occasions
and were proceeded ex parte, thereafter the matter was heard on merits.

1.   During the pendency of the Writ petition, this Court vide order dated
                     09.09.2004, issued certain interim directions regarding rejoining of duties by
                     workmen. In compliance thereof, some of the workmen reported for duty but
                     admittedly worked only for a limited period and thereafter again stopped
                     reporting for duty.
   

2.   On 13.02.2006, the workmen submitted a written complaint to the
                     S.H.O., P.S. Naraina, New Delhi, as well as to the Labour Commissioner,
                     stating that when they reported for duty in the morning, the employer asked
                     them to wait at the factory gate. After making them wait for a considerable
                     period, the management allegedly stated that they had received no such
                     order from the High Court and, therefore, no workman would be allowed to
                     enter the premises. It was further stated that when the workmen produced a
                     copy of the Court's order before the management, the management became
                     agitated and asked them to leave, stating that they did not care about such Signature Not Verified Signed By:KAPIL                W.P.(C) 3083/2003                                                  Page 5 of 28 KUMAR Signing Date:24.03.2026 16:10:55 orders. The workmen also addressed a letter dated 17.02.2006 to the Labour
                     Commissioner requesting him to direct the management to take them back
                     on duty.
   

3. Subsequently, vide order dated 14.03.2006, this Court appointed
   Local Commissioner (hereinafter 'LC') to supervise compliance with the
   directions passed by this court in its earlier orders, by making surprise visits
   to the premises.

4. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, inspections of the Petitioner's
   premises were conducted on various dates between 27.03.2006 and
   11.04.2006 to ascertain the status of the workmen. During the visits,
   discussions were held with the workmen and also with the management. The
   attendance records were also inspected. The parties initially agreed that the
   workmen would resume duties from 31.03.2006, and the workmen were
   subsequently allowed to join duty. However, disputes arose regarding wages
   and payment rates, leading to the workmen refusing to accept the payment
   offered by the management. Thereafter, it was reported that the workmen
   stopped reporting for duty from 01.04.2006 onwards.

5. The reports of the learned LC recorded that while some workmen
   reported for duty and marked attendance, others did not continue regularly
   and disputes arose regarding wages and working conditions. The reports of
   the LC further indicated that compliance with the interim directions
   remained partial and contested.

6. On 30.03.2006, the workmen again submitted a written complaint to
   the S.H.O., P.S. Naraina, New Delhi, stating that when they reported for
   duty in the morning, the employer denied them entry into the premises and
   also refused to pay their earned wages.

Signature Not Verified Signed By:KAPIL W.P.(C) 3083/2003 Page 6 of 28 KUMAR Signing Date:24.03.2026 16:10:55 16. Subsequently, the workmen filed an application before this court on
03.04.2006, contending that they were not being allowed to join their duties
and neither their earned wages were paid. They accordingly prayed that the
Petitioner be directed to allow the Respondent /workmen to join and perform
their duties and to disburse the earned wages to the Respondent/workmen in
cash forthwith.

1.   Furthermore, vide order dated 21.07.2009, liberty was granted to the
                     workmen on an explicit request made by them before this Court to explore
                     the possibility of a settlement with the Petitioner; however, no settlement
                     could be arrived at. Subsequently, on 02.03.2010, the workmen filed an
                     application before this Court seeking reference of the present matter to the
                     Mediation Cell for discussions across the table. Accordingly, vide order
                     dated 15.04.2010, this Court directed the parties to appear before the
                     Mediation Cell of this Court on 26.04.2010.
   

2.   Vide order(s) dated 7.05.2015 and 14.12.2017, the Writ Petition again
                     came to be dismissed in default due to non-appearance of the parties but was
                     subsequently restored vide order(s) dated 22.05.2015 and 29.07.2019 upon
                     applications filed by the Petitioner explaining his absence and requesting for
                     restoration of the same.
   

ISSUES INVOLVED:

1. The sole question before this Court at present is:

● Whether the Learned Labour Court was justified in answering the
reference in favour of the workmen by directing reinstatement of
their services with back wages?
Signature Not Verified Signed By:KAPIL W.P.(C) 3083/2003 Page 7 of 28 KUMAR Signing Date:24.03.2026 16:10:55
SUBMISSIONS OF PARTIES:
20. At the outset, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the
Impugned award is vitiated as it proceeds on the erroneous assumption that
the services of the workmen were terminated by the management, whereas
no termination order, oral or written, was ever issued. It is submitted that in
the absence of any order of termination, the very reference itself was
misconceived and the finding of illegal termination is unsustainable.

1. It is further submitted that the consistent stand of the management has
   been that the workmen, from 02.11.1990, voluntarily stopped reporting for
   duty and abandoned their services on their own accord. Learned counsel
   submits that the management had issued notice dated 05.11.1990 and
   subsequent communications calling upon the workmen to resume their
   duties, the receipt of which was never disputed, but the workmen failed to
   respond positively and did not rejoin.

2. Learned counsel further points out that in the rejoinder filed before
   the Labour Court, the workmen admitted receipt of the management's letter
   dated 01.12.1990, yet despite such admitted communication and repeated
   opportunities, they did not report back for duty, thereby clearly
   demonstrating their lack of intention to continue the service.

3. It is also submitted that after the incident dated 06.11.1990, a
   settlement was arrived at on 28.11.1990 before the Assistant Commissioner
   of Police, Naraina, wherein the workmen agreed to resume duties. However,
   despite the said settlement and the readiness of the management to take them
   back, the workmen did not rejoin. The conciliation proceedings further
   record that the management was willing to reinstate the workmen without
   conditions, but the workmen themselves failed to avail of the opportunity.

Signature Not Verified Signed By:KAPIL W.P.(C) 3083/2003 Page 8 of 28 KUMAR Signing Date:24.03.2026 16:10:55 24. In this backdrop, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the
Labour Court erred in accepting the allegation of oral refusal of employment
while disregarding the consistent evidence on record showing voluntary
abandonment. It is further submitted that prolonged and unexplained
absence without leave or intimation constitutes abandonment of service.
Reliance in this regard is placed on Punjab and Sind Bank v. Sakattar
Singh, (2001) 1 SCC 214, Vijay S. Sathaye v. Indian Airlines Ltd., (2013)
10 SCC 253, and Vivekanand Sethi v. Chairman, (2005) 5 SCC 337,
wherein it has been held that abandonment can be inferred from conduct and
continued absence beyond the permissible period and it gives rise to a
presumption that the employee has ceased to remain in service, shifting the
burden on the workman to prove otherwise.

1. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of this
   Court in Sukhdev Singh v. Delhi Development Authority, 2011 SCC
   OnLine Del 4680, to submit that abandonment of service can be inferred
   from surrounding circumstances and conduct, and the requirement of a
   domestic enquiry is not absolute in every such case.

2. Learned counsel further submits that even during the pendency of the
   present Writ petition, despite opportunities granted pursuant to the orders of
   this Court, the workmen did not continuously report for duty. Also, the
   reports of the LC appointed by this Court record that the workmen were not
   interested in working, raised disputes regarding wages, and thereafter
   remained absent without justification, thereby reinforcing the management's
   case of abandonment.

Signature Not Verified Signed By:KAPIL W.P.(C) 3083/2003 Page 9 of 28 KUMAR Signing Date:24.03.2026 16:10:55 27. Lastly, it is submitted that in view of the prolonged absence of the
workmen and their failure to demonstrate continuous willingness to work,
no presumption of unemployment can be drawn. Reliance is placed on Navin J. Suri v. Modi Rubber Ltd., MANU/MH/1333/2004, to submit that
where a workman does not explain how he sustained himself during the
period of absence, the Court may draw an inference that he was gainfully
employed elsewhere.

1. Since none appears on behalf of the Respondent(s) despite ample
   opportunity, this Court is left with no other option but to proceed with the
   matter ex parte.

2. Respondent Nos. 3-12, who are the concerned workmen, have not
   been appearing before this Court for a considerable period and have
   remained unrepresented on several dates of hearing. Accordingly, their stand
   is noticed only on the basis of the counter affidavit and other documents
   filed on record.

(As Emerging from the Counter Affidavit on Record)

1. From the counter affidavit, it is the stand of Respondents that the Writ
   petition is not maintainable, inter alia, on the ground that the Petitioner has
   allegedly not approached this Court with clean hands and has concealed and
   misrepresented material facts.

2. It is further averred in the counter affidavit that the Writ petition
   raises disputed questions of fact which, according to the Respondents, ought
   not to be examined in exercise of Writ jurisdiction, particularly when the
   Labour Court has already returned findings on evidence.

3. The Respondents have pleaded that the Petitioner is seeking to re-
   agitate issues already decided by the Labour Court, including the rejection Signature Not Verified Signed By:KAPIL W.P.(C) 3083/2003 Page 10 of 28 KUMAR Signing Date:24.03.2026 16:10:55 of the application dated 20.08.2002 for leading additional evidence, which,
   according to them, was not separately challenged and has attained finality.

4. Respondents further have denied abandonment of service and have
   asserted that their services were illegally terminated when they demanded
   statutory benefits, including bonus and earned wages. It is their pleaded case
   that it is improbable for workmen to abandon service abruptly without
   claiming service benefits.

5. The Respondents have further averred that they continued to report
   for duty but were refused entry by the management, compelling them to
   approach the Labour Inspector and the police. They have disputed the
   allegations relating to the incident dated 06.11.1990 and have alleged that
   they were manhandled by the management.

6. It is also the Respondents' case, as pleaded, that there was no valid
   settlement as claimed by the Petitioner and that the notices relied upon by
   the Petitioner, including the notice dated 01.12.1990, were either fabricated
   or issued to create evidence. They have denied that they failed to report for
   duty pursuant to any such settlement or notice.

7. The counter affidavit further states that during conciliation
   proceedings, it was the Petitioner who allegedly refused to take the
   Respondents back on duty, and that the failure of conciliation, according to
   the Respondents, cannot be attributed to them.

8. The Respondents have supported the Impugned award in their
   pleadings by contending that the Labour Court afforded full opportunity to
   both sides, appreciated the evidence on record, and rightly disbelieved the
   testimony of the management witness, while granting reinstatement with
   back wages on the ground that the Respondents remained unemployed.

Signature Not Verified Signed By:KAPIL W.P.(C) 3083/2003 Page 11 of 28 KUMAR Signing Date:24.03.2026 16:10:55 38. The Respondents submit that they duly reported for duty pursuant to
the interim orders of this Court but were permitted to join only under
supervision and were neither assigned regular work nor paid the amounts
and wages directed, owing to repeated obstruction and denial of entry by the
Petitioner-management. It is submitted that the alleged non-working of the
Respondents was not voluntary, but a direct consequence of the Petitioner's
wilful non-compliance with the orders of this Court.

DISCUSSION:

1. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the
   Petitioner/Management. The Respondent/workmen have remained absent
   despite repeated opportunities and therefore are proceeded ex parte.
   However, this Court has independently perused the Impugned award, the
   pleadings, applications, and documentary material placed on record by the
   Respondent/workmen, in addition to the submissions and material relied
   upon by the Petitioner/Management, in order to adjudicate the present
   petition on its merits.

2. In light of the rival submissions, the issue that arises for consideration
   before this Court is whether the Labour Court erred in holding that the
   services of the Respondent/workmen had been illegally terminated, despite
   the plea of voluntary abandonment and in the absence of any written or
   formal order of termination.

3. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court does not act as a Court of
   appeal over the findings recorded by the Labour Court. The scope of judicial
   review is limited and interference is warranted only where the Impugned Signature Not Verified Signed By:KAPIL W.P.(C) 3083/2003 Page 12 of 28 KUMAR Signing Date:24.03.2026 16:10:55 award suffers from patent illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error, or where
   material evidence has been ignored or irrelevant considerations have been
   taken into account.

4. At the same time, it is equally settled that the power of judicial review
   is intended to ensure that grave injustice is not perpetuated and that findings
   which are unsupported by evidence or based on erroneous application of law
   do not sustain. Where the conclusions drawn by the Labour Court are not
   borne out from the material on record or are contrary to settled legal
   principles, this Court would be justified in exercising its supervisory
   jurisdiction to interfere with the Award.

5. The principal grievance of the Petitioner is that it were the workmen
   who had abandoned their duties on their own, despite the willingness of the
   Petitioner to allow them to continue working with all necessary and
   consequential benefits. According to the Petitioner, it was never the case that
   the management denied them employment or terminated their services. On
   the other hand, the workmen have, since the inception of the dispute,
   consistently maintained that they were always ready and willing to work but
   were not permitted to do so by the management, despite the directions issued
   by the Labour Court as well as by this Court.

6. The Labour Court, after due consideration of the pleadings and the
   documents placed on record, answered the reference in favour of the
   workmen and directed their reinstatement and minimum wages for the
   intervening period. The Labour Court further held that the workman could at
   best be held to have abandoned the job. It further went on to hold that
   abandonment being a species of misconduct, the management was duty-

Signature Not Verified Signed By:KAPIL W.P.(C) 3083/2003 Page 13 of 28 KUMAR Signing Date:24.03.2026 16:10:55 bound to hold a proper domestic enquiry before taking any adverse action
against the workman.

1. Now adverting to the rival submissions urged on behalf of the parties. The preliminary objection of the Petitioner is that the reference was not maintainable in the absence of a written order of termination. Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter 'the Act'), defines 'retrenchment' as:

"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;]"
46. The term 'retrenchment' has been defined as the termination by the
employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, except
those specifically excluded, namely voluntary retirement, superannuation, or
termination on account of the non-renewal of a contract of employment. The
statute does not provide that, for an act of termination to constitute
retrenchment, a written order or formal communication is mandatory; such
termination may also be oral or may be inferred from the conduct of the Signature Not Verified Signed By:KAPIL W.P.(C) 3083/2003 Page 14 of 28 KUMAR Signing Date:24.03.2026 16:10:55 employer. Had the legislature intended that retrenchment must necessarily
be effected through a written order, it would have expressly incorporated
such a requirement in the statute.

1. As also is well settled by judicial precedents that termination of
   service need not necessarily be evidenced by a formal written order. An oral
   refusal of employment or denial of duty, if established on evidence, would
   equally constitute termination within the meaning of the Act. Therefore, the
   contention that, in the absence of a written order, there can be no
   retrenchment or termination, is untenable in law and lacks statutory backing.
   In the present case, the Labour Court, upon appreciation of evidence, has
   returned a categorical finding that the workmen were refused employment.
   Such cessation of employment squarely falls within the ambit of Section
   2(oo) of the Act, and therefore, the reference made by the appropriate
   Government under Section 10 of Act cannot be said to be invalid or without
   jurisdiction.

2. Coming to the second argument of the Petitioner that the workmen
   voluntarily stopped reporting for duty and abandoned their services on their
   own accord and management never stopped them from working. The same
   issue was also raised before the Labour Court and in order to adjudicate this
   dispute, the Labour Court examined the oral evidence led by the parties. Ten
   workmen entered the witness box and deposed in support of their claim,
   whereas the management examined MW-1 Shri Paramjeet Singh. The
   Labour Court, while evaluating the testimony of MW-1, recorded the
   following finding:

"The testimony of MW-1 Paramjeet Singh is most
damaging. He had testified that he did not know under Signature Not Verified Signed By:KAPIL W.P.(C) 3083/2003 Page 15 of 28 KUMAR Signing Date:24.03.2026 16:10:55 what circumstances the workmen were keeping away.
It gives credit to the story of the workmen that they had
been refused employment. No reason whatsoever has
been assigned for refusing duties to the workmen. It
just points out to one thing that services of the
workmen had been dispensed with without any cogent
reason by the management."
49. The testimony of the sole witness on the behalf of management
reflects that it does not support the case set up by the management. Rather, it
lends credence to the version put forth by the workmen. The admission
made by MW-1 that he was unaware of the circumstances under which the
workmen were allegedly kept away from duty weakens the stand of the
management and strengthens the contention of the workmen that they had
been refused employment. In the absence of any cogent explanation from
the management for denying duties to the workmen, the inference drawn by
the Labour Court that the services of the workmen had been dispensed with
without any justifiable reason cannot be said to be unfounded. Assuming
arguendo, that the stand of the Petitioner is correct, even then the maximum
course of action warranted on the part of the management would have been
to initiate disciplinary proceedings by issuing show cause notices and
conducting a proper domestic enquiry. Direct termination of the services of
the workmen without following the principles of natural justice cannot be
justified.

1. The counsel for Petitioner also contended that despite various
   communications, repeated opportunities and even a settlement agreement to
   the same, workmen did not report back for duty, thereby clearly
   demonstrating their lack of intention to continue in service. However, this
   contention cannot be accepted in toto. The record reflects that the workmen Signature Not Verified Signed By:KAPIL W.P.(C) 3083/2003 Page 16 of 28 KUMAR Signing Date:24.03.2026 16:10:55 were also actively pursuing the matter and had even filed an application
   before this Court when they were allegedly not allowed to resume their
   duties after the specific directions of this court, seeking appropriate
   directions to the Petitioner to comply with the orders of the Court and permit
   them to work. In these circumstances, it cannot be conclusively held that the
   workmen were voluntarily abstaining from working or intentionally
   disregarding the directions of this Court.

2. Furthermore, to support his contention Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner
   places reliance on Punjab and Sind Bank (supra), Vijay S. Sathaye (supra), and Vivekanand Sethi (supra), contending that it has been held by
   Hon'ble the Supreme Court as also by various High Courts that
   abandonment can be inferred from conduct and continued absence beyond
   the permissible period and it gives rise to a presumption that the employee
   has ceased to remain in service, shifting the burden on the workman to prove
   otherwise.

3. However, the said decisions do not advance the case of the Petitioner
   in the facts of the present matter. In those cases, the employer being a Public
   Sector Undertaking coupled with the fact that several notices were issued to
   the employees calling upon them to resume duty, clearly spelling out the
   possible consequences of continued absence. In such circumstances,
   abandonment of service was inferred. The factual matrix of the present case
   is materially different and, therefore, the said precedents do not apply
   squarely to the case at hand.

4. It is also a matter of record that the Petitioner moved an application
   before this court being CM No. 3769/2005 under Section 151 CPC, 1908
   seeking direction from this court against the workmen to accept the Signature Not Verified Signed By:KAPIL W.P.(C) 3083/2003 Page 17 of 28 KUMAR Signing Date:24.03.2026 16:10:55 payments in terms of the orders dated 26.10.2004 and 16.02.2005 and to
   resume duties, asserting its willingness to comply with the orders passed by
   this Court. Vide order dated 16.02.2005, this Court directed that the earlier
   order dated 26.10.2004 be complied with and further directed that upon
   workmen reporting for duty, they would be paid wages in accordance with
   the applicable law. Thereafter, vide dated 28.09.2005, this Court recorded
   the statement made on behalf of the Petitioner that it had no objection to the
   Respondents continuing the service. Subsequently, vide order dated
   30.01.2006, specific directions were issued to the workmen to report for
   duty at the Petitioner's establishment.

5. However, disputes continued between the parties with regard to the
   actual joining of duties and implementation of this Court's directions. In
   these circumstances, and in order to resolve the rival contentions, this Court,
   vide order dated 14.03.2006, appointed a LC to remain present at the
   Petitioner's premises to facilitate the joining of the workmen and to oversee
   compliance with the Court's directions regarding payment of wages and
   reporting for duty. These proceedings pertained to the implementation of
   interim directions during the pendency of the Writ petition and do not
   detract from the findings returned by the Labour Court on the issue of illegal
   termination.

6. Pursuant thereto, this Court had appointed Ms. Pragnya Routray,
   Advocate, as LC, to supervise compliance of its directions regarding
   payment of wages and performance of duties. In her report, she recorded
   that the Petitioner/management had prepared the wages and was ready to
   make payment in her presence. However, the workmen disputed the
   quantum of wages, contending that they were entitled to wages at the higher Signature Not Verified Signed By:KAPIL W.P.(C) 3083/2003 Page 18 of 28 KUMAR Signing Date:24.03.2026 16:10:55 rate applicable to skilled workers instead of the rate offered by the
   management. The LC noted that the management's representative expressed
   willingness to place the demand before the proprietor, and she advised the
   workmen to accept the payment under protest, assuring them that their claim
   for higher wages and any consequential difference could be considered
   separately. Despite such assurance and repeated intervention by the LC, the
   workmen declined to accept the payment and left the premises without
   receiving their wages.

7. The LC further reported that upon her subsequent visit to the
   petitioner's premises, none of the workmen were found reporting for duty
   and the management informed her that the workmen had stopped coming to
   work with effect from 01.04.2006. The attendance registers were inspected
   and copies thereof were retained by the LC. In view of the continued
   absence of the workmen and their failure to communicate any reason for
   non-reporting, the LC concluded her assignment and submitted her report to
   this Court, recording as under:

"Since the workers are not reporting for duty for more
than 10 days nor they have bothered to intimate me
regarding the same I feel more visits of the said
premises are not required and therefore, at this stage
the report as I was directed to prepare by this Hon'ble
Court is required to be submitted now."
57. Similarly, this Court had also appointed Mr. Varun Prasad, Advocate,
as LC vide order dated 14.03.2006, to supervise the joining of duties by the
workmen. In his report, he recorded that he was present at the Petitioner's
establishment on 16.03.2006, when six out of the nine workmen reported for
duty and were assigned work by the Petitioner/management in his presence, Signature Not Verified Signed By:KAPIL W.P.(C) 3083/2003 Page 19 of 28 KUMAR Signing Date:24.03.2026 16:10:55 and their attendance was duly marked. The remaining workmen were stated
to be in their native places and were permitted to join thereafter. The report
further records that two workmen joined duties on 20.03.2006 and the last
workman joined on 21.03.2006. The LC thus confirmed that, pursuant to the
directions of this Court, all the concerned workmen were allowed to resume
duties with the Petitioner and their joining stood effected.

1. Subsequently, the Respondent/workmen moved an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, alleging non-compliance
   with the order dated 14.03.2006 vide which their reinstatement was directed.
   It was alleged that despite reporting for duty, the Petitioner/management was
   harassing them, refusing to assign meaningful duties, withholding wages,
   and preventing them from working within the establishment. It was further
   alleged that they were denied entry into the premises and were not being
   paid wages in accordance with the directions of this Court. In response
   thereto, the Petitioner/management filed a reply denying the aforesaid
   allegations and asserting that it had complied with the orders of this Court in
   letter and spirit. It was stated that the workmen had been permitted to join
   duties and that the management was ready and willing to pay wages in terms
   of this Court's directions. However, according to the
   Petitioner/management, the workmen themselves were unwilling to work
   and were raising disputes regarding the rate of wages and had thereafter
   stopped reporting for duty.

2. The reports of the Court-appointed Local Commissioners, being
   independent and contemporaneous records, indicate that the workmen were
   permitted to join duties and that the management expressed readiness to
   disburse wages in terms of this Court's directions. The reports further reveal Signature Not Verified Signed By:KAPIL W.P.(C) 3083/2003 Page 20 of 28 KUMAR Signing Date:24.03.2026 16:10:55 that disagreements emerged between the parties concerning the wage
   amounts, following which the workmen ceased to attend work.

3. In this context, the reports of the learned LC tasked with supervising
   compliance assume considerable importance. They indicate that, although
   arrangements had been made by the management to facilitate payment in
   accordance with the Court's directions, the workmen disputed the rate of
   wages and declined to accept the same. It is further recorded that the
   workmen remained absent from duty for a continuous period exceeding ten
   days without any intimation, prompting submission of the report. These
   reports, prepared pursuant to judicial directions, form part of the record and
   shed light on the manner in which compliance proceedings unfolded.

4. The Respondents have, at the outset, objected to the maintainability of
   the Writ petition on the ground that it raises disputed questions of fact,
   impermissible in Writ jurisdiction, particularly in light of the findings
   recorded by the Labour Court. It is contended that the Petitioner seeks to re-
   agitate concluded issues, including the rejection of the application dated
   20.08.2002 for additional evidence, which has attained finality.

5. On merits, the Respondents deny abandonment of service and assert
   illegal termination upon their demand for statutory benefits. They contend
   that they continued to report for duty but were denied entry by the
   management, and dispute the incident dated 06.11.1990, alleging
   manhandling.

6. They further deny the existence of any valid settlement, terming the
   documents relied upon by the Petitioner, including the notice dated
   01.12.1990, as fabricated, and assert that the failure of conciliation is
   attributable to the Petitioner.

Signature Not Verified Signed By:KAPIL W.P.(C) 3083/2003 Page 21 of 28 KUMAR Signing Date:24.03.2026 16:10:55 64. Supporting the Impugned award, it is submitted that the Labour
Court, upon due appreciation of evidence, rightly disbelieved the
management's case and granted reinstatement with back wages. It is lastly
contended that their non-working, despite reporting pursuant to interim
orders, was due to the Petitioner's non-compliance and not voluntary.

1.  It is well settled that termination of service affecting the livelihood of
                     a workman must comply with the principles of natural justice. In [D.K.
                     Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd.](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/427114/), (1993) 3 SCC 259, the Hon'ble Supreme
                     Court held that the right to livelihood is an integral part of the right to life
                     under [Article 21](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1199182/) of the Constitution of India and that, before taking any
                     action putting an end to the tenure of an employee, fair play requires that a
                     reasonable opportunity be afforded and a domestic enquiry be conducted.
                     The Supreme [Court further held](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/427114/) that where no such opportunity is given and
                     no enquiry is held, the action would be arbitrary, unjust, and unfair. In the
                     present case, the Labour Court examined the question of cessation of
                     employment on the basis of the evidence on record and recorded its finding
                     that no charge-sheet was issued and no domestic enquiry was conducted
                     prior to cessation of employment. The said finding, being based on
                     appreciation of evidence, does not suffer from perversity, patent illegality, or
                     jurisdictional infirmity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of
                     its supervisory jurisdiction under [Articles 226](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1712542/) and [227](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1331149/) of the Constitution of
                     India.
   

2.  The rival submissions of the parties, including the contention of the
                     Petitioner/management that the workmen had abandoned service and were
                     unwilling to resume duties, and the assertion of the workmen that there was
                     deliberate non-compliance with the reinstatement and wage directions, have Signature Not Verified Signed By:KAPIL            W.P.(C) 3083/2003                                                      Page 22 of 28 KUMAR Signing Date:24.03.2026 16:10:55 been considered in the light of the material on record, particularly the reports
                     of the learned LC appointed by this Court. These reports assume
                     significance in assessing the implementation of this Court's directions, the
                     factum of joining of duties, and the readiness and willingness of the
                     management to comply with the orders passed.
   

3. While this court as of now is inclined to accept that the finding of the
   Labour Court on the issue of illegal termination does not call for
   interference within the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226 of
   the Constitution, whereas the subsequent developments during the pendency
   of the Writ petition, including the compliance proceedings and the reports of
   the learned LCs, are relevant for determining the nature and extent of
   consequential relief to be granted.

4. It is evident that the Labour Court founded its conclusion on two
   principal considerations, namely, that the management had failed to
   establish abandonment of service, and that even otherwise; no domestic
   enquiry or disciplinary proceedings had been conducted before bringing
   about cessation of employment.

5. The aforesaid finding returned by the Labour Court is a finding of fact
   based upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence led by the
   parties. This Court, in exercise of its limited jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, does not sit in appeal over such findings. The
   Petitioner has not demonstrated that the said finding suffers from perversity,
   is based on no evidence, or is vitiated by any jurisdictional error. The plea of
   abandonment was specifically raised by the Petitioner, considered, and
   rejected by the Labour Court on the basis of evidence on record, and no
   perversity or illegality has been shown in such finding. Even assuming that Signature Not Verified Signed By:KAPIL W.P.(C) 3083/2003 Page 23 of 28 KUMAR Signing Date:24.03.2026 16:10:55 the plea of abandonment was available to the Petitioner, the Labour Court
   having rejected the same on appreciation of evidence, this Court cannot re-
   appreciate the evidence to take a different view in exercise of Writ
   jurisdiction. In the absence of any such infirmity, the conclusion of the
   Labour Court holding the cessation of employment to be illegal does not
   warrant interference.

6. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that relief under Writ
   jurisdiction must balance equities and ensure fairness to both sides. While
   the Respondent/workmen cannot be denied relief altogether in view of the
   finding that termination was illegal, it would be equally unjust and
   inequitable to saddle the Petitioner/management with the burden of
   reinstatement and back wages after more than three decades, particularly
   when maximum workmen have already superannuated and the management
   had complied with the interim directions of this Court during the pendency
   of the proceedings.

7. Applying the aforesaid principles to the present case, while the
   Labour Court rightly held that the cessation of employment was not
   preceded by a domestic enquiry, the subsequent events during the pendency
   of the Writ petition are relevant for moulding the relief. The reports of the
   learned LCs, appointed pursuant to the directions of this Court, record that
   the workmen were permitted to join duties and the management had
   expressed readiness to disburse wages in compliance with Section 17-B of
   the Act; however, disputes arose regarding the wage rates, the payments
   offered were not accepted, and the workmen thereafter did not continue to
   report for duties. These contemporaneous reports, forming part of the record,
   reflect the course of compliance proceedings and are relevant for assessing Signature Not Verified Signed By:KAPIL W.P.(C) 3083/2003 Page 24 of 28 KUMAR Signing Date:24.03.2026 16:10:55 the conduct of the parties while determining the nature and extent of
   consequential relief.

CONCLUSION:

Quoting R.G. Collingwood:

"The only clue to what a man can do is what man has done."
72. Upon considering the various issues arising in the present matter,
particularly the fact that more than 36 years have elapsed since the alleged
termination/abandonment of service, it becomes evident that the workmen
have not diligently pursued the proceedings for a considerable period. It is
further noted that, despite repeated efforts by this Court to afford them an
opportunity to rejoin duties, as reflected in the report of the Labour
Commissioner, the workmen failed to avail such opportunity.

1. These circumstances give rise to a strong inference that the workmen
   are not inclined to resume employment with the Petitioner. It may also be
   reasonably inferred that they might have been gainfully employed
   elsewhere, which could explain their non-appearance for rejoining duties.
   Accordingly, the relief of reinstatement would not be an appropriate relief to
   be granted at this stage that too when the workmen are not even pursuing the
   case for the very relief.

2. Equally well settled is the principle that grant of back wages is not
   automatic and depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd. v. Uday Narain Pandey, (2006) 1
   SCC 479, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

"22. No precise formula can be laid down as to under
what circumstances payment of entire back wages
should be allowed. Indisputably, it depends upon the Signature Not Verified Signed By:KAPIL W.P.(C) 3083/2003 Page 25 of 28 KUMAR Signing Date:24.03.2026 16:10:55 facts and circumstances of each case... It should not be
granted mechanically only because on technical
grounds or otherwise an order of termination is found
to be in contravention of the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act."
42. A person is not entitled to get something only
because it would be lawful to do so. If that principle is
applied, the function of an industrial court shall lose
much of their significance."

1. The Court, therefore, emphasised that while
   granting relief, application of mind on the part of the
   Industrial Court is imperative. Payment of full back
   wages, therefore, cannot be the natural consequence."
   The aforesaid exposition makes it clear that even
   where termination is held to be illegal, grant of back
   wages is not automatic and the relief is required to be
   moulded in the light of the facts of the case."

2. Therefore, the relief of back wages is also liable to be rejected. As,
   despite a clear and binding order passed by this Court directing them to join
   duties, the workmen did not come forward to resume their services. Even
   assuming, for the sake of argument, that the Petitioner had prevented them
   from rejoining, the workmen had efficacious remedies available in law,
   including approaching the Labour Commissioner for enforcement of the
   order or seeking appropriate directions for non-compliance thereof.
   However, no such steps were taken by any of the workmen. This conduct
   again gives rise to an inference that the workmen might have been gainfully
   employed elsewhere; as it is difficult to believe that they were able to sustain
   themselves and their families without any source of livelihood for such a
   long period. Having failed to pursue such remedies, the claim for back
   wages cannot be sustained.

Signature Not Verified Signed By:KAPIL W.P.(C) 3083/2003 Page 26 of 28 KUMAR Signing Date:24.03.2026 16:10:55 76. The record further shows that during the pendency of the Writ
petition, the Respondent/workmen filed an application under Section 17-B of the Act seeking payment of last drawn wages during the pendency of this
petition. Vide order dated 09.09.2004, this Court directed the petitioner that
a sum of ₹2000/- would be paid to each workman. As also, vide order dated
26.10.2004, while hearing the application under Section 17-B, this Court
directed that the workmen shall be paid last drawn wages from the date of
filing of the Writ petition till they rejoined duties, without prejudice to the
rights and contentions of either party, and further directed that the payment
be made in cash against receipt.

1. As regards the grant of compensation, which is ordinarily awarded in
   lieu of reinstatement in similar cases and has also been granted by this Court
   in appropriate matters, the same is not considered justified in the present
   case. Notably, in the year 2004, this Court had permitted the workmen to
   rejoin the services of the Petitioner, yet they did not avail themselves of that
   opportunity. Their refusal to rejoin the services clearly indicates a lack of
   interest in continuing employment with the Petitioner. In these
   circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant compensation as well.
   Therefore, whatever amount, if any, has been disbursed in compliance with
   the order of Section 17B, the same shall be treated as lump sum
   compensation or back wages.

2. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that while
   the finding of the Labour Court in the Impugned award holding the
   termination of the Respondent/workmen to be illegal deserves to be upheld,
   the direction for reinstatement with back wages cannot be sustained and is
   accordingly set aside.

Signature Not Verified Signed By:KAPIL W.P.(C) 3083/2003 Page 27 of 28 KUMAR Signing Date:24.03.2026 16:10:55 79. In abovementioned terms, the Writ is disposed of. Pending
applications, if any, stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

SHAIL JAIN
JUDGE
MARCH 24, 2026/HP Signature Not Verified Signed By:KAPIL W.P.(C) 3083/2003 Page 28 of 28 KUMAR Signing Date:24.03.2026 16:10:55