W.P.(C) 1368/2015 $~40 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1368/2015 FAROOGH NADEEM .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajat Sharma, Adv. through V.C. versus M/S DISCOVERY JOURNEY INDIA PVT. LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Prateek Gupta, Mr. Pulkit Agarwal & Ms. Vishakha Kaushik, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN O R D E R % 21.07.2026 1. The present petition is filed assailing order dated 07.09.2013, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, to the extent that instead of ordering reinstatement with full back wages, the learned Tribunal only granted compensation, despite finding that the petitioner’s termination was illegal. 2. Pertinently, the learned Tribunal noted that the conduct of the workman was also relevant while determining the relief for which he would be entitled. It was noted that the workman initially pleaded that his services were terminated on 20.01.2011, however, in his cross examination he had deposed that that he was not in employment after 10.04.2010. The learned Trial Court also noted that the period for which the workman worked with the respondent was only for the period from November, 2008 and till April, 2010. It was further noted that the workman did not even try to find a job during the pendency of the industrial dispute. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/07/2026 at 12:18:15 W.P.(C) 1368/2015 3. Notably, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Allahabad Bank v. Krishan Pal Singh : (2021) 19 SCC 227, has held that reinstatement with full back wages is not automatic in every case where termination or dismissal is found to be not in accordance with the procedure prescribed under law and that the relief can be moulded depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Admittedly, the conduct of the petitioner weighed with the learned Court in not granting the back wages to the petitioner. This Court is in agreement with the view taken by the learned Trial Court that compensation would be adequate relief in the present case and no reinstatement can be granted. 5. However, in the opinion of this Court the compensation of ₹35,000/-, as awarded in the present case, is not adequate. Thus, an additional sum of ₹50,000/- is granted over the compensation. The additional amount shall not carry any interest and shall be paid to the respondent within a period of four weeks. 6. The appeal is disposed in the aforesaid terms. AMIT MAHAJAN, J JULY 21, 2026 “SK” This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/07/2026 at 12:18:15