* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 28.11.2025 Pronounced on:28.02.2026 + W.P.(C) 7710/2017 & CM APPL. 32948/2023 CHINTA LAL .....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 30.08.2013 (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. 191/2012, 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. Chinta Ram (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 machine operator since the year 1991. 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. 19.09.2011 and he was 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. 191/2012 to the learned Labour Court. The learned Labour Court framed issues surrounding the dispute to the following effect:

(i) whether the workman has abandoned the services of his own by remaining absent from his duties? OPM (ii) in terms of reference? OP parties (iii) relief.

5. The learned Labour Court decided issue No. 1 in favour of workman holding that as the management has shifted, it is not a case of abandonment. On issue Nos. 2 and 3, the learned Labour Court answered the same 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 in respect of issues no. 2, 3 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. L