Workmen challenged Labour Court awards dismissing their references on alleged illegal termination, claiming over a decade of service. The High Court found no evidence they had completed 240 days in the preceding year and upheld the awards, dismissing the petitions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~
% Judgment reserved on: 29.01.2025 Judgment pronounced on: 03.02.2025
+ W.P.(C) 1084/2025, CM APPLs. 5347/2025 & 5348/2025
SHRI PAPPU PATHAK .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Narendra Singh, Advocate.
versus M S BANSAL BROTHERS INDUSTRIES .....Respondent Through: None.
+ W.P.(C) 1085/2025, CM APPLs. 5349/2025 & 5350/2025
SHRI VINIT SHARMA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Narendra Singh, Advocate. versus M S BANSAL BROTHERS INDUSTRIES .....Respondent Through: None.
+ W.P.(C) 1091/2025, CM APPLs. 5374/2025 & 5375/2025
SHRI SANJAY SHARMA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Narendra Singh, Advocate. versus M S BANSAL BROTHERS INDUSTRIES .....Respondent Through: None.
CORAM:
JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:0 3.02.2025 17:30:47
W.P.(C) 1084/2025, 1085/2025 & 1091/2025
Page 1 of 9 pages
GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, ou=DELHI HIGH COURT, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, postalCode=110003, st=DELHI, serialNumber=D3E86796451EC45C07B5D15570996B40F80CBD2EEE60402C487965FF801E26FA, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2025.02.03 14:22:14 -08'00'
C O M M O N J U D G M E N T
GIRISH KATHPALIA, J.:
2.1 By way of orders dated 19.02.2018, the Government of NCT of Delhi sent to the Labour Court three separate References in the names of the petitioners to the effect as to whether their services had been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the present respondent management, and if so, to what relief they are entitled.
2.2 The factual matrix set up by the petitioners in their respective statements of claim was as follows. The petitioners Pappu Pathak and Vinit Sharma were working as karigars with the respondent management for past
W.P.(C) 1084/2025, 1085/2025 & 1091/2025
Page 2 of 9 pages GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, ou=DELHI HIGH COURT, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb48 35d435f97626cacca, postalCode=110003, st=DELHI, serialNumber=D3E86796451EC45C07B5D15570996B40F80CB KATHPALIA D2EEE60402C487965FF801E26FA, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2025.02.03 14:22:36 -08'00'
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:0 3.02.2025 17:30:47
13 years while petitioner Sanjay Sharma was working as karigar with the respondent management for past 09 years. The last monthly wages drawn by the petitioners Pappu Pathak, Vinit Sharma and Sanjay Sharma were Rs. 11,700/-, Rs. 10,100/- & Rs. 9,200/- respectively. Despite their hard work and sincerity, the petitioners were not granted legal facilities like appointment letter, earned leave, casual leave, leave pay, leave book and salary slip etc. On false assurances, the respondent management took signatures of all these petitioners on blank papers and when they insisted for being provided facilities to which they were entitled, the respondent management illegally terminated their services on 30.04.2017, without paying their wages for the months of March & April 2017. Despite their complaints to the labour authorities and their demand notices dated 01.06.2017, the respondent management did not reinstate their services and did not pay balance wages.
2.3 The respondent management filed written statements in each of those cases before the Labour Court, denying the contents of the statements of claims. In the written statements, the respondent management pleaded that Pappu Pathak as semi skilled worker, Vinit Sharma as helper and Sanjay Sharma also as helper joined service of the management respectively on 12.11.2016, 09.11.2016 and 11.11.2016 by way of appointment letters issued to each of them. The respondent management further pleaded that on 30.04.2017, all these workmen left their job at their own will and accord, without completing even 240 days of service. The respondent management
W.P.(C) 1084/2025, 1085/2025 & 1091/2025
Page 3 of 9 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA GIRISH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, ou=DELHI HIGH COURT, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb 4835d435f97626cacca, postalCode=110003, st=DELHI, serialNumber=D3E86796451EC45C07B5D15570996B40F80C KATHPALIA BD2EEE60402C487965FF801E26FA, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2025.02.03 14:22:51 -08'00'
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:0 3.02.2025 17:30:47
denied having obtained signatures of any of the petitioners on blank papers and also denied that the workmen raised any demand or grievance.
2.4 The petitioners workmen filed rejoinders, denying the contents of the written statements and reaffirmed their claim contents.
2.5 On the basis of rival pleadings, the Labour Court originally framed issues as to whether the workmen left their job at their own will and accord or their services were terminated illegally/unjustifiably by the respondent management. Subsequently, the learned Labour Court framed an additional issue as to whether the workmen had not completed 240 days of service in the preceding 12 months of their alleged termination.
2.6 During trial, each of the petitioners appeared as their solitary witness while on behalf of the respondent management, their Supervisor appeared as its solitary witness. After hearing both sides, the Labour Court passed the awards, which are impugned in the present proceedings.
2.7 In the impugned awards, the Labour Court after analysis of rival pleadings and evidence arrived at the findings that the applications of the petitioners workmen seeking appointment and the appointment letters issued to them, coupled with the attendance & wage records adduced in evidence by the respondent management clearly established that the petitioners workmen had joined the service of the respondent management sometime in
W.P.(C) 1084/2025, 1085/2025 & 1091/2025
Page 4 of 9 pages GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, ou=DELHI HIGH COURT, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, postalCode=110003, st=DELHI, serialNumber=D3E86796451EC45C07B5D15570996B40F80CBD2 KATHPALIA EEE60402C487965FF801E26FA, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2025.02.03 14:23:06 -08'00'
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:0 3.02.2025 17:30:47
the month of November 2016 itself and that there is no evidence to show that any of the workmen worked with the management for 240 days in the 12 months preceding the date of their alleged termination. The learned Labour Court also placed reliance on a judicial precedent flowing from the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the effect that it is for the workman to prove that he had worked for 240 days in a year with the management. Having arrived at the findings that the petitioners workmen had not worked with the respondent management even for a period of 240 days, the learned Labour Court decided the additional issue in favor of the respondent management and took a view that on account of the said findings, there was no need to delve into the remaining issues. With these findings, the learned Labour Court dismissed the statements of claims of the petitioners workmen and answered the References against them.
W.P.(C) 1084/2025, 1085/2025 & 1091/2025
Page 5 of 9 pages GIRISH
GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, ou=DELHI HIGH COURT, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb48 35d435f97626cacca, postalCode=110003, st=DELHI, serialNumber=D3E86796451EC45C07B5D15570996B40F80CB KATHPALIA D2EEE60402C487965FF801E26FA, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2025.02.03 14:23:22 -08'00'
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:0 3.02.2025 17:30:47
W.P.(C) 1084/2025, 1085/2025 & 1091/2025
Page 6 of 9 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA GIRISH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, ou=DELHI HIGH COURT, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb48 35d435f97626cacca, postalCode=110003, st=DELHI, serialNumber=D3E86796451EC45C07B5D15570996B40F80CBD KATHPALIA 2EEE60402C487965FF801E26FA, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2025.02.03 14:23:38 -08'00'
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:0 3.02.2025 17:30:47
having not filed any document on record to show that they were working with the respondent management as karigar for the last 13 years. Further, on being shown the appointment letters Ex.WW1/M, each of the petitioners workmen admitted his signatures on the same. In cross examination, petitioners also admitted having not made any representation to the respondent management and having not lodged any complaint with any authority that they were being denied legal facilities by the respondent management.
W.P.(C) 1084/2025, 1085/2025 & 1091/2025
Page 7 of 9 pages GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, ou=DELHI HIGH COURT, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835 d435f97626cacca, postalCode=110003, st=DELHI, serialNumber=D3E86796451EC45C07B5D15570996B40F80CBD2E KATHPALIA EE60402C487965FF801E26FA, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2025.02.03 14:23:54 -08'00'
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:0 3.02.2025 17:30:47
W.P.(C) 1084/2025, 1085/2025 & 1091/2025
Page 8 of 9 pages GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, ou=DELHI HIGH COURT, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4 835d435f97626cacca, postalCode=110003, st=DELHI, serialNumber=D3E86796451EC45C07B5D15570996B40F80CB KATHPALIA D2EEE60402C487965FF801E26FA, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2025.02.03 14:24:09 -08'00'
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:0 3.02.2025 17:30:47
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, ou=DELHI HIGH COURT, GIRISH 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec4556 9af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, postalCode=110003, st=DELHI, serialNumber=D3E86796451EC45C07B5D15570 KATHPALIA 996B40F80CBD2EEE60402C487965FF801E26FA, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2025.02.03 14:24:26 -08'00'
GIRISH KATHPALIA (JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 03, 2025/as
W.P.(C) 1084/2025, 1085/2025 & 1091/2025
Page 9 of 9 pages
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:0 3.02.2025 17:30:47
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the workmen had worked for at least 240 days in the 12 months preceding their alleged termination.
Whether the Labour Court awards answering the references against the workmen suffered from any infirmity.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shri Pappu Pathak
Shri Vinit Sharma
Shri Sanjay Sharma
M S Bansal Brothers Industries
Girish Kathpalia
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
