$~89 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 19224/2025, CM APPL. 80114/2025, CM APPL. 80115/2025 & CM APPL. 80116/2025 M/S MINIMED .....Petitioner Through: Appearance not given.

versus TRILOKI NATH CHAUDHARY .....Respondent Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

O R D E R

% 18.12.2025

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 read with Section 151 of the CPC seeks the following prayers: -

“(a) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to set aside the impugned judgment dated 01.05.2024 passed in LIR No. 6882/2016 titled as "Sh. Triloki Nath Chaudhary Vs. M/s. Minimed" passed by Ms. Monika Saroha, PO, Labour Court, Rouse Avenue Court, New Delhi (b) Pass any other or further orders that this Hon'ble Court may deem necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case or in the interest of justice.”

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the impugned award dated 01.05.2024 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 02, Rouse Avenue Court Complex, wherein the following observations were made: -

“10. The workman took the stand in his claim as well as in evidence affidavit and cross-examination that he was unemployed since September 2006 i.e. the date on which the management terminated his services. However the management led concrete evidence to show that the workman was gainfully employed at least from 09.06.2011, if not before that. The management placed on record the certified copy of the order passed in another Industrial Dispute involving the workman. (Judgment was exhibited as Ex.MWl/8) and the workman did not dispute the authenticity of this order. Similarly, the management has placed on record the award dated 05.01.2016 passed by the Presiding Officer Labour Court No. XVI, Karkardooma Court in matter involving the workman and another management (titled as Sh. Triloki Nath Chaudhary Vs. M/s Panex Overseas) which shows that the workman was working with yet another management from 31.03.2012 onwards. However the workman never informed the court of his subsequent employment with other managements. Even in his chief & cross-examination recorded much after his other disputes were decided, he did not mention in his evidence that he had secured another employment. 11. While the court does not expect a workman to sit idle for years and becoming pauper while fighting for his rights, but the court indeed expects the workman to inform the court of his employment status changes. If he had joined another employer, he should have informed the court of the same, but he chose not to do so. This act of the workman was an attempt to pollute the stream of justice and to mislead the court on material aspect only to secure undue benefits of back wages.

12. It is clear that the workman did not conduct the proceedings with clean hands and indeed he has not brought on record complete true facts regarding his subsequent employment with M/s Shri Hari Overseas Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Panex Overseas. Thus, considering this act of the workman of deliberately informing the court in his chief- examination on 03.07.2015 that he had never worked after 2006, even though he had himself initiated legal proceeding against his two subsequent employers and had even suffered the judgment dated 02.08.2014 (Ex.MWI/8), it is held that the workman is not entitled to any back wages from the management.

13. In all considering the facts of the case, this court is of the view that ends of justice would be met by granting a lump sum compensation to the workman instead of reinstatement. Thus, taking into account the length of service of the workman, nature of his duties and his last drawn salary I award a lump sum compensation of Rs. 60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand only) in favour of the workman and against the management which includes litigation expenses. The management is direc