$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC013770962018 + W.P.(C) 12386/2018 NEPALI SAH AND ORS. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Suraj Kr. Singh, Mr. Bharat Singh and Mr. Abhay Singh, Advocates (through VC) versus CONTINENTAL TELEPOWER INDUSTRIES LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Mr. Saumitra Singhal, Advocate (through VC) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI O R D E R % 29.09.2026 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioners assail the Award dated 31.05.2018 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-X, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in ID No.2674/2016, whereby the learned Labour Court, while holding that the termination of the petitioners was illegal and unjustified, declined the relief of reinstatement and awarded lump-sum compensation in lieu thereof. The petitioners, in the present proceedings, seek enhancement of the compensation so awarded. 2. The industrial dispute raised by the workmen related to their termination from the services of the respondent-management. The record of the proceedings before the learned Labour Court shows that the petitioners had 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 07/10/2026 at 15:33:57 been in the employment of the respondent for several years. The relevant particulars of the six petitioners, as borne out from the record, are below:- Sl. No. Name Date of Joining Pay Post (i) Nepali Sah 1990 Rs. 2,011/- Operator (ii) Ram Gopal 1992 Rs. 1,784/- Operator (iii) Joginder Kumar 1987 Rs. 1,943/- Operator (iv) Narsingh Pd. 1991 Rs. 1,950/- Operator (v) Ram Saran 1991 Rs. 1,784/- Operator (vi) Devi Prasad 1989 Rs. 1,677/- Helper 3. The management had contested the claims and, inter alia, relied upon the domestic enquiry conducted against the workmen. It was its case that the workmen had been suspended on account of alleged misconduct and that the enquiry had thereafter been conducted in accordance with law. The management also placed on record that its factory at Delhi had closed down and that its manufacturing activities had permanently ceased w.e.f. 10.03.2006. The learned Labour Court, upon appreciation of the evidence, found that the domestic enquiry stood vitiated. It further noted that the management had failed to establish the alleged misconduct against the workmen. In particular, the management's witness had not personally witnessed the alleged incident and, despite an opportunity having been granted to lead secondary evidence, the management failed to substantiate the allegations. Consequently, the learned Labour Court held that the termination of the concerned workmen could not be said to be legal and justified. While considering the question of relief, the learned Labour Court declined reinstatement on the ground that considerable 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 07/10/2026 at 15:33:57 time had elapsed and that the Delhi factory of the management had closed down. It was accordingly held that the ends of justice would be met by awarding lump-sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement, back wages and other consequential benefits. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that having regard to the length of service rendered by the petitioners, the prolonged pendency of the industrial dispute and the circumstances in which their services came to be terminated, the compensation awarded by the learned Labour Court warrants enhancement. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the learned Labour Court has already taken into consideration the relevant facts, including the nature and duration of service of the petitioners, while determining the quantum of compensation. It is submitted that the compensation awarded is just and reasonable in the facts of the case and does not warrant any further enhancement. 6. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. It is well settled that while determining the appropriate relief in cases of illegal or unjustified termination, the Court is required to mould the relief having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. In Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board1, and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Bhurumal2, the Supreme Court has recognised that compensation 1 (2009) 15 SCC 327 2 (2014) 7 SCC 177 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 07/10/2026 at 15:33:57 may be awarded in lieu of reinstatement, particularly where considerable time has elapsed since the termination. 8. In the present case, the learned Labour Court, having regard to the facts and circumstances, awarded monetary compensation to the petitioners. The challenge before this Court is confined to the quantum thereof. While determining the quantum of compensation, the length of service rendered by the respective petitioners is a relevant consideration. As borne out from the record, the petitioners had rendered substantial periods of service with the respondent-management, ranging from approximately 17 years to 25 years. 9. In view of the aforesaid, and having regard to the length of service of the respective petitioners, the prolonged pendency of the dispute, the finding of illegal and unjustified termination and the compensation already awarded by the learned Labour Court, this Court considers it appropriate to enhance the compensation awarded to each petitioner to twice the amount awarded under the impugned Award. 10. Accordingly, the compensation payable to the petitioners is modified as follows: Sl. No. Petitioner Amount awarded Revised amount (double) (i) Nepali Sah Rs. 3,00,000/- Rs. 6,00,000/- (ii) Ram Gopal Rs. 2,80,000/- Rs. 5,60,000/- (iii) Joginder Kumar Rs. 2,85,000/- Rs. 5,70,000/- (iv) Narsingh Prasad Rs. 2,85,000/- Rs. 5,70,000/- (v) Ram Saran Rs. 2,80,000/- Rs. 5,60,000/- (vi) Devi Prasad Rs. 2,70,000/- Rs. 5,40,000/- 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 07/10/2026 at 15:33:57 11. The litigation expenses of Rs. 5,000/- each awarded by the learned Labour Court shall remain undisturbed. The amount deposited by the respondent before this Court pursuant to the order dated 19.11.2025, being the amount awarded by the learned Labour Court in favour of the petitioners, along with the interest accrued thereon, if any, shall be released by the Registry in favour of the respective petitioners, in accordance with their entitlement under the Award. In view of the enhancement directed hereinabove, the respondent shall pay the differential amount to each of the petitioners, over and above the amount already awarded and directed to be released, within a period of four weeks from today. 12. In the event of failure to make payment of the aforesaid additional amounts within the stipulated period of four weeks, the unpaid amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of expiry of the said period till realization. 13. The payment shall be made directly to the respective petitioners in their bank accounts. The petitioners shall furnish their complete bank details to learned counsel for the respondent within one week from today. 14. The Award dated 31.05.2018 stands modified to the aforesaid extent. 15. The petition is accordingly disposed of. MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J SEPTEMBER 29, 2026/na 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 07/10/2026 at 15:33:57