The court reaffirmed that an employer must provide procedural documentation to validate termination; absence of such leads to findings of illegal termination under the Act.

JUDGMENT :

SACHIN DATTA, J.

CM APPl.94/2026 (Exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 41/2026

3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing an award dated 14.11.2025 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-IV, Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi in L.I.R No. 112/2024.

4. The Labour Court adjudicated the reference made under Section 10 (1)(c) and 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as “the IDA ”) by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, New Delhi, in view of a complaint filed by the respondent/workman against the petitioner and directed the petitioner to pay a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- to respondent/workman on account of violation of Section 25F of the .

5. The petitioner in the present petition is a company which formerly manufactured testing machines and laboratory equipments. It is stated that the said company ceased its operations w.e.f. from 01.04.2023. The respondent/workman is stated to be a former employee of the petitioner.

6. The learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that conclusion drawn upon in the impugned award is contrary to the evidence on record and based on mere conjectures and surmises. Therefore, the impugned decision is perverse and passed in violation of Section 11 of the IDA .

7. It is further submitted that the lumpsum compensation amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- awarded in favour of the respondent/workman is arbitrary and without any basis inasmuch as: -

i. the same was allegedly awarded by the Court without any cogent rationale or computation merely in lieu of relief of reinstatement;

ii. the respondent/workman was not terminated by the petitioner instead he himself abandoned the employment of the petitioner;

iii. during cross examination the respondent/workman allegedly admitted that he was earning daily wages pursuant to his termination and also failed to specify any timeline during which he remained unemployed after the alleged termination;

iv. although the petitioner’s unit had discontinued its operation, the management of the petitioner offered reinstatement to the respondent/workman at a different unit (owned by the mother of one of the directors of the petitioner) situated at Manesar, Haryana which the respondent/workman did not avail.

8. It is noticed that although the petitioner contends that the respondent/workman abandoned the employment, a bare perusal of the cross-examination of the petitioner’s director (MW1 before the Labour Court) reveals a categorical admission that the employment of respondent/workman was, in fact, terminated by the petitioner. The same has been noticed by the Court in the impugned award as under: -

“44) On the issue of illegal termination, it is important to note that MW1 Nitin Tully has categorically admitted that management had terminated the services of the workman and therefore, the onus has shifted on management to justify its action of termination of the workman in terms of guidelines laid down in the judgment of Workmen of Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd v. The Management of Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India (P)Ltd and Others. (1973) 1 SCC 813.

45) The justification furnished by management witness MW1 in his evidence affidavit for termination of the workman is that workman had stopped attending his duties, on his own due to personal and medical reasons and that management had issued a notice to him before terminating him. However, admittedly the management has not placed on record copy of any such showcause notice/notice of termination or any other relevant document.

46) Now in present case, even if it is presumed for the sake of arguments that the workman himself had stopped attending