The normal rule in cases of wrongful termination of service is reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages, unless the employer can prove that the employee was gainfully employed or there are exceptional circumstances necessitating departure from the normal rule.

VINOD GOEL, J.

1. All these three writ petitions involve identical issues of facts and law and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. By a common award dated 03.10.2012, the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Karkardooma, Delhi (in short 'Industrial Adjudicator') has answered the reference made by Government of NCT of Delhi bearing No.F.24(89)/SD/2010/11441 dated 18.08.2010 in ID No.106/11 (Jeet Nath), F.24(88)/Lab/SD/2010/11198 dated 12.08.2010 in ID No.107/11 (Ram Sagar) and F.24(62)/Lab/SD/2010/ 6152 dated 21.06.2010 in ID No.108/11 (Bholanath Lal). The terms of Reference in each case are as under :-

In ID No.106/11

“Whether the services of Sh. Jeetnath S/o Late Shri Tanda Das have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management; if yes, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?”

In ID No.107/11

“Whether the services of Sh. Ram Sagar S/o Late Sh. Palturam have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management; if yes, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?”

In ID No.108/11

“Whether the services of Sh. Bholanath Lal S/o Shri Gokarn Lal have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management; if yes, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?”

3. The petitioner Jeet Nath claimed that he has been working as a helper with the respondent/Management since 1989 at a salary of Rs.2,900/- per month. The petitioner Ram Sagar claimed that he has been working as a helper since 1999 with the respondent at a salary of Rs.2,600/- per month. However, the petitioner Bhola Nath Lal has claimed to have been working as a Peon since 1984 with the respondent at a salary of Rs.2,600/- per month. It is alleged by them that they had demanded certain legal facilities and for that reason the respondent/Management terminated their services on 23.02.2010.

4. The respondent/Management had taken the defence that they never terminated the services of these workmen who had voluntarily abandoned their job on their being transferred to its Chandni Chowk Unit by order dated 01.01.2010 and stopped coming for duties w.e.f. 31.01.2010. It is admitted that the salaries of these workmen for the period from November 2009 to January 2010 is due to them which they never refused to pay and due to transfer, the workmen did not report for their duties and to collect salaries.

5. The Industrial Adjudicator framed the following issues on 16.01.2012 :-

“1. Whether the workman himself voluntarily abandoned the services of the management?

2. In terms of reference.”

6. The findings on above issues are recorded by the Industrial Adjudicator in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the common impugned Award, which read as under :-

“13. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the authorities cited, it is a matter of record that the management has not been able to prove the abandonment through any oral or documentary evidence. No evidence in the eyes of law the factum of alleged communications of the absentism has proved by the management through ocular and trustworthy evidence.

14. The management has been closed its evidence by not leading any evidence. There is no document whatsoever placed on record regarding the absentism/abandonment of the workmen. Even the management has failed to adduce any evidence regarding the contentions raised in the written statement that the workman has abandoned on their own as they have been transferred to other place. Even being call back to rejoin their respective duties. As such the contention raised by the management is not plausible by any ocular and trustworthy evidence nor its substantiated with any material evidence. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing discussion both the issues are decided in favour of the workmen and against the management.”

7. After deciding the issues, while granting relief, the Industrial Adjudicator vide impugned award directed the respondent/Management to rein