* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 28.11.2025 Pronounced on:28.02.2026 + W.P.(C) 7694/2017 RAM PRAKASH .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Ritu Jain & Ms. Sreedhi Nair, Advs.

versus M/S KIRAN ENGINEERING AND SUPPLIERS AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. A.K. Jain, Mrs. Santosh Jain & Mr. R.M. Tiwari, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR

J U D G M E N T

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the Award dated 29.08.2013 (hereinafter referred to as “impugned award”) passed by learned Presiding Officer, Court No. IX, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “Labour Court”) in Industrial Dispute being ID No. 147/2012, whereby, the reference of the petitioner workman was dismissed.

2. The facts necessary for deciding the controversy involved in the present writ petition is in narrow compass. It is stated that Sh. Ram Prakash (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioner workman”) had been working with the respondent No. 1 management (hereinafter referred to as “the respondent management”) at B-68/3, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi-110052, as a helper since April 1992. It is stated that the workman was made to work for both the managements as both the managements were running in the same building. It is stated that the respondent management, in the year 2011-12, allegedly closed their establishment/undertaking from the aforesaid premises and shifted their address to Sikandrabad, Uttar Pradesh.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the services of the petitioner were terminated w.e.f. 05.09.2011 and they were not given any terminal benefits such as retrenchment compensation, prior notice or gratuity, etc. As a result thereof, the petitioner and other co-workmen protested against the said closure of management and subsequently, preferred an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “ID Act”) for adjudication of their claims.

4. The appropriate government referred the industrial dispute being ID No. 147/2012 to the learned Labour Court. The learned Labour Court framed issues surrounding the dispute to the following effect:

(i) in terms of reference? OP parties (ii) relief.

5. The learned Labour Court decided issue Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the management holding therein that it was merely a case of shifting of the establishment and not its closure.

6. Being aggrieved thereof, the present writ petition has been filed seeking setting aside of the said impugned award and seeking a relief holding that the respondent management has been closed and further, grant the petitioner retrenchment compensation in terms of Section

25FFF of the ID Act.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner workman submitted to the effect that the finding of the learned Labour Court that the present dispute was not a case of closure of respondent management and was merely shifting of the establishment, is erroneous, arbitrary and contrary to the settled position of law and is thus, liable to be set aside.

8. It is submitted that the learned Labour Court erred in dismissing the reference filed by the workman by holding that since, he was asked to resume his services at the shifted premises at Sikandrabad, therefore, it does not amount to termination of his services. It is submitted that no workman can be forced to join at the shifted premises and in the present case, the workman was asked to join at the shifted premises with a view to avoid making payment of terminal benefits like closure compensation, notice pay as per Section 25FFF of ID Act which tantamount to illegal termination of his services.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the learned Labour Court failed to appreciate the fact that closing down the undertaking at one place and shifting the machinery and industry to a different state/premises amounts to closure of the undertaking and thus, the respondent management were bound to follow t