$~41-42 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010341152021 + W.P.(C) 12444/2021 TEJPAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajiv Agarwal, Mr. Siddharth Sapra and Ms. Meghna De, Advocates versus ALL INDIA RADIO .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sahil Bhalaik, Mr. Shivam Mishra and Mr. Utkarsh, Advocates # CNR No. DLHC010390752021 + W.P.(C) 14463/2021 and CM APPL. 45537/2021 ALL INDIA RADIO .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sahil Bhalaik, Mr. Shivam Mishra and Mr. Utkarsh, Advocates versus TEJPAL .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rajiv Agarwal, Mr. Siddharth Sapra and Ms.Meghna De, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI O R D E R % 28.09.2026 1. The present petitions arise out of the Award dated 23.02.2021 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum-Labour Court -II, New Delhi in I.D. No.27/2009. By the said Award, the learned Labour Court held that the respondent-workman was an employee of All India Radio and that his termination w.e.f. 11.10.1999 was illegal for non-compliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The learned Labour Court, however, declined the relief of reinstatement and awarded retrenchment compensation of Rs.600/- along with lump-sum compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement. 2. Both the workman and the management have assailed the impugned 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 08/10/2026 at 12:07:59 order by their respective petitions. While the workman seeks reinstatement with consequential benefits, the management seeks setting aside of the relief of compensation granted. 3. The workman's case before the learned Labour Court was that he had been engaged as an Aerial Field worker from 11.12.1998 and had continuously worked till 11.10.1999. He claimed that his attendance was recorded in the muster roll maintained by the management and that gate passes were issued to him for entry into the premises of All India Radio. The management, on the other hand, denied the existence of any employer- employee relationship and pleaded that the workman had been engaged through M/s K.K. Traders, which had been engaged for maintenance and grass-cutting work. 4. The learned Labour Court, inter alia, considered whether the workman was an employee of the management and, upon appreciating the evidence, held that an employer-employee relationship with All India Radio stood established, relying upon the muster roll, gate pass and the management witness's admission regarding issuance of the gate pass. It further held that the management had failed to establish the alleged connection between K.K. Traders and the workman and that the requirements of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act had not been complied with. However, noting that the workman had served for only about ten months, from 11.12.1998 to 11.10.1999, and that there was no material to show that the work for which he was engaged continued to be required, the learned Labour Court awarded compensation in lieu of reinstatement. 5. Learned counsel for the workman submits that the learned Labour Court, having returned a finding that the workman was an employee of 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 08/10/2026 at 12:07:59 management and that his termination was in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, ought to have granted reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. Particular reliance is placed upon the statement made by the management witness during cross-examination that, “it is correct that the workman had worked with the management”, which, according to learned counsel, constitutes an admission of the employer- employee relationship. 6. Learned counsel for the management, on the other hand, disputes the existence of any employer-employee relationship and submits that the workman was engaged through K.K. Traders, to whom payments were made by the management. It is submitted that the gate pass issued to the workman was only for facilitating entry and exit of persons deployed through the contractor and cannot establish direct employment. It is further submitted that the workman had worked for only about ten months and had failed to establish either an employer-employee relationship with the management or completion of 240 days. As regards the statement relied upon by the workman, it is submitted that the same cannot be read in isolation, particularly when the witness immediately denied that the workman was a direct employee of the management and that his services had been terminated by adopting a policy of hire and fire. 7. This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 8. The principal challenge raised by the management is to the finding regarding the existence of an employer-employee relationship. Such a finding, being essentially one of fact, is required to be examined on the basis of the evidence and circumstances of the case. In Workmen of Nilgiri Coop. 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 08/10/2026 at 12:07:59 Mkt. Society Ltd. v. State of T.N.1, the Supreme Court has held that no single test is determinative of the existence of an employer-employee relationship and that the question has to be determined having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. 9. The workman has placed particular reliance upon the statement of the management witness in cross-examination that, “it is correct that the workman had worked with the management”. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the management that the said statement, however, cannot be treated as an unequivocal admission of direct employment. Immediately thereafter, the witness denied that the workman was a direct employee of All India Radio and that his services had been terminated by adopting a policy of hire and fire. The testimony has, therefore, to be read as a whole. Learned Labour Court , however, has held the workman to be an employee of the management. 10. This Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, does not sit as an appellate court over findings of fact recorded by the learned Labour Court. As held by the Supreme Court in Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan2, interference with such findings is warranted only where they are based on no evidence or suffer from an error of law apparent on the face of the record. In the present case, no such ground for interference is made out. 11. As regards the relief, the learned Labour Court, while holding the termination to be illegal, declined reinstatement having regard to the fact that the workman had worked for only about ten months and that 1 (2004) 3 SCC 514 2 AIR 1964 SC 477 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 08/10/2026 at 12:07:59 considerable time had elapsed since cessation of his employment. Reinstatement with back wages is not an automatic consequence of a finding of illegal termination, and compensation may, in appropriate cases, be awarded in lieu thereof. Reference may be made to Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board,3and BSNL v. Bhurumal4. 12. In the present case, the workman's employment had ceased in October, 1999 and had lasted for only about ten months. The learned Labour Court has awarded compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- apart from retrenchment compensation of Rs.600/-. Having regard to the short duration of employment and the considerable passage of time, no interference with the relief granted by the learned Labour Court is warranted. 13. Consequently, no ground for interference with the impugned Award is made out. Both the petitions are accordingly dismissed. 14. The interim order dated 16.12.2021, whereby the recovery proceedings qua the impugned Award were stayed subject to deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- with the Registrar General, stands vacated. The aforementioned amount of Rs.1,00,000/- along with the interest accrued thereon, if any, be released in favour of the workman. The further amount which remains payable to the workman in terms of the Award, shall also be released in favour of the workman within four weeks from today. 15. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J SEPTEMBER 28, 2026/Sn Corrected and released on 07.10.2026. 3 (2009) 15 SCC 327 4 (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 08/10/2026 at 12:07:59