Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Delhi · body

2019 DAILYLAW 3272 (DEL)

M/S HINDUSTAN JAR & POTTERIES HOUSE AND ANR. v. SH. MANOJ KUMAR & ANR

W.P.(C)/8226/2019 · 2026-09-09

Manoj Kumar Ohri

Writ Petition (Civil)body2019

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010314992019 + W.P.(C) 8226/2019 & CM APPL. 63280/2025 M/S HINDUSTAN JAR & POTTERIES HOUSE AND ANR. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Awadhesh Kumar, Advocate versus SH. MANOJ KUMAR & ANR .....Respondent Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI O R D E R % 09.09.2026 1. The present writ petition has been preferred seeking to impugn the order dated 22.01.2019, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-XVII in LIR No. 554/2016. 2. Vide the aforesaid Award, the learned Labour Court held that the claimant had worked with both the managements from 01.04.1997 to 20.09.2011, i.e., for a period of about 14 years, and his salary as on 01.10.2006 was Rs.4,350/-. Instead of directing reinstatement, both the managements were directed to pay him lump-sum compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-, failing which the said amount would carry interest @ 9% per annum till its realisation. 3. Facts in nutshell are that the workman had raised an Industrial Dispute, on which the following reference was forwarded to the learned Labour Court:- 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 16/09/2026 at 12:44:09 "Whether Sh. Manoj Kumar S/o Sh. Ved Prakash is absenting from his duty w.e.f. 10.09.2011 on his own or his services have been terminated illegally / or unjustifiably by the management; and if yes, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?" 4. In the claim application, the claimant had claimed that Mr. G.P. Bansal and his son Mr. Arvind Bansal were partners in both the managements, which were engaged in the trading business of crockery from the same address. Initially, he was appointed by management No.1 on 09.02.1995, on an initial salary of Rs.2,000/-. However, his provident fund subscription was deposited only from 01.04.1997. As management No.2 was also owned by the same set of persons, the workman claimed that he was made to work for both the managements. Although this fact was not raised in the initial statement of claim, in the affidavit of evidence, the said fact was brought on record. It was further claimed that in the year 2006, when he asked for financial assistance, the management advised him to withdraw his PF instead of taking a loan and, for that purpose, his name was shifted to the records of management No.2. In this manner, the workman was made to withdraw his entire provident fund deposited by management No.1. Thereafter, he continued to work with the management 2 and was paid salary of Rs. 4350/- since 01.10.2006. On 10.09.2011, the management unexpectedly told him that his services were no longer required. It was claimed that no notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation was paid before termination of his services. Both the 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 16/09/2026 at 12:44:09 management appeared and admitted in the written statement that both managements were partnership firms and engaged in the trading of crockery. The factum that Mr. G.P. Bansal and Mr. Arvind Bansal were partners in both the managements, was also not denied. It was rather claimed that the claimant had left the job and, in this regard, had executed an undertaking. It was further stated that both the managements had closed down their businesses permanently with effect from April, 2015. Allegations were levelled against the claimant of bungling in the accounts. 5. Before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners has extensively relied on the undertaking i.e., full and final settlement document (Ex. WW1/M1) executed by the claimant to submit that the workman, having withdrawn the PF, accepted the settlement amount and was left with no claim. 6. A perusal of the aforesaid undertaking dated 21.10.2009 would show that the claimant had stated that he was working with management No.2 since 01.10.2006 and was withdrawing his complaint against the management which he had filed with the Labour Department and that he would continue to work with the management honestly and sincerely. In this regard, the workman had tendered an explanation that the said document was executed when a case was filed against management No.2 in the year 2009. While the management had further relied on a complaint dated 11.04.2011 given against another employee namely, Jai Bhagwan, to the SHO, P.S. Lahori Gate, the same by itself would not establish that the workman had absented himself. The complaint was lodged on 11.04.2011, whereas the management's case was that the claimant started absenting himself from duty w.e.f. 20.09.2011. Though the management 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 16/09/2026 at 12:44:09 had tried to link the complaint with the claimant, no material in this regard was placed on record. 7. In light of the aforesaid facts, the explanation tendered by the workman was found to be just and proper and the allegations of the management were disbelieved. It is also noted that on 09.01.2020, learned counsel for the petitioners had made a statement that they were willing to amicably settle the matter by paying him 50% of the award amount. The factum of the appellant's working with the managements being not denied, the finding of illegal termination calls for no interference. 8. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. The petitioners shall pay the award amount within a period of four weeks, if not already paid. 9. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J SEPTEMBER 9, 2026 sn 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 16/09/2026 at 12:44:09