* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: 17.12.2025

Judgment pronounced on:20.12.2025

+ W.P.(C) 11204/2017

M/S RAM SWAROOP AND SONS .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Awadhesh Kumar, Adv.

versus

SHRI RIYAZUDDIN AND ANR. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Satish Kumar Tripathi, Advocate.

+ W.P.(C) 12504/2018

M/S RAM SWAROOP & SONS .....Petitioners

Through: Mr. Awadhesh Kumar, Adv.

versus

SHRI NARESH KUMAR & ANR. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Satish Kumar Tripathi, Advocate.

+ W.P.(C) 12838/2018

M/S RAM SWAROOP AND SONS .....Petitioners

Through: Mr. Awadhesh Kumar, Adv.

versus

SHRI HARI KISHAN AND ANR. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Satish Kumar Tripathi, Advocate.

Ms. Urvi Mohan, Advocate for

GNCTD

+ W.P.(C) 12844/2018

M/S RAM SWAROOP AND SONS .....Petitioners

Through: Mr. Awadhesh Kumar, Adv.

versus SHRI DINESH KUMAR AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Satish Kumar Tripathi, Advocate.

Mr. Anubhav Gupta and Ms. Ishita Gupta, Panel Counsel for GNCTD.

+ W.P.(C) 12857/2018 M/S RAM SWAROOP AND SONS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Awadhesh Kumar, Adv.

versus SHRI ISRAR AHMAD AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Satish Kumar Tripathi, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA

JUDGMENT

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. This present batch of petitions, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, have been filed by the petitioner/management against the separate Awards dated 17.08.2017, 18.08.2017 and 19.08.2017 in LIR No. 64/17, LIR No. 361/17, LIR No. 363/17, LIR No. 362/17 and LIR No. 364/17 respectively passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-XXII, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, whereby the termination of five workmen by the petitioner/management was held to be illegal and the petitioner was directed to reinstate them with continuity of service and back wages. Since the petitions are filed by the same management against the Awards involving identical issues with only minor variations in the facts, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. In these petitions, unless otherwise specified, the petitioner will be referred to as the management, and the workman will be referred to by their respective names and collectively as workmen, for convenience.

3. Brief factual matrix, as per the statements of claim filed by the workmen, is as follows: The workmen, namely Riyazuddin, Naresh, Hari Kishan, Dinesh, and Israr, joined the services of the management on 01.01.1992, 05.03.1996, 01.05.1996, 01.01.2000, and 10.10.1992, respectively, to the posts of turner, fitter, and field worker, respectively and each of them discharged their duties to the entire satisfaction of the management. The last drawn salary of all the aforesaid workmen was ₹8,528/- per month.

3.1. The workmen alleged that the management was not providing the statutory benefits to them and was not even paying the minimum wages as fixed by the appropriate government. A demand notice dated 12.04.2012 was sent to the management. But there was no response from the management. Thereafter, the management failed to make payment of wages for the months of February and March 2012 to the workmen, pursuant to which a complaint dated 19.04.2012 through their then Union was made to the Labour Department. The management came to know about the complaint and terminated the services of the workmen with effect from 14.05.2012. With respect to the management’s failure to pay the minimum wages to the workmen, a claim was filed before the appropriate authority, which is presently pending adjudication. The workmen raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer, who initiated conciliation proceedings in the matter. However, due to the non-cooperation of the management, the conciliation proceedings failed, and consequently, the dispute bearing LIR No. 2938/2016 was referred to the Labour Court, and the issue relating to payment of back wages for the period from 14.05.2012 to 20.05.2013 remained pending for adjudication. During the pendency of the sai