$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 13.01.2026 Date of decision: 24.03.2026 Uploaded on: 24.03.2026 + W.P.(C) 3083/2003, CM APPL. 13453/2004, CM APPL. 13454/2004, CM APPL. 3769/2005, CM APPL. 6331/2006, CM APPL. 2862/2010 M/S.THERMOKING .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashim Vachher, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Saiba M. Rajpal, Mr.

Vinayak, Advs.

versus P.O.& RASHTRIYA GEN.MAZ.UNION .....Respondent Through: None CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN

JUDGMENT

SHAIL JAIN, J.

1. The instant Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner, M/s Thermoking, through its Proprietor Shri Pradeep Khanna, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking quashing of the Award dated 20.08.2002 passed by the learned Labour Court No. IV, Karkardooma Courts, Shahdara, Delhi in Industrial Dispute bearing No. 222/91 (hereinafter ‘Impugned award’). The said dispute arose between the Management of M/s Thermoking and its workmen represented through Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union (Regd.), wherein the Labour Court held that the services of the workmen had been terminated illegally and unjustifiably and accordingly directed their reinstatement along with back wages.

BRIEF FACTS:

2. The Petitioner is a proprietorship concern engaged in the manufacture of electrical appliances having its factory situated at A-24, Phase-I, Naraina Industrial Area, New Delhi. Respondent Nos. 3 to 12 were employed with the Petitioner during different times in various capacities and were members of Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union/Respondent No. 2.

3. The Respondent/workmen, however, through Respondent No.2 vide letter dated 05.11.1990 addressed to the Labour Inspector, contended that they had been illegally refused employment and that their services had been terminated without compliance with law. They requested the Labour Inspector to direct the management to take workers back into service and also sought intervention of the Labour Inspector for being allowed to perform their duties and for payment of earned wages etc. Consequently, the Labour Inspector directed the workmen to be present at the factory gate on

6.11.1990.

4. On 06.11.1990, when the workmen reported at the factory, an incident took place at the factory premises, following which complaints were lodged by the management and also by the workmen with the police authorities. Pursuant thereto, a meeting was convened before the Assistant Commissioner of Police (A.C.P.), Naraina, in the presence of the Union leader, Sh. Pyare Lal, and the representatives of the Petitioner. In the said meeting, a settlement was reached between the management and Sh. Pyare Lal on behalf of the workmen, whereby, it was agreed that the workmen would resume their duties with effect from 28.11.1990 and would be paid

8.33% bonus along with their salary for the month of October, 1990. Sh. Pyare Lal also assured that all the workmen would report for duties on the agreed date. According to the Petitioner, however, the workmen did not report for duty despite the said settlement, whereas the workmen alleged that they were prevented by the Petitioner itself from resuming their duties.

5. As alleged by the Petitioner, in the year 1990, particularly with effect from 02.11.1990, the Respondent/workmen stopped reporting for duty without proper intimation or any sanctioned leave. In pursuance to which, the Petitioner addressed a letter dated 01.12.1990 to The Rashtriya Hazdoor Union/Respondent No. 2 complaining about the continued absence of workmen without any notice despite the settlement before the A.C.P. & calling upon the workmen, for the last time to resume their duties within three days.

6. Thereafter, the Respondent/workmen approached the ‘appropriate government’ (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) raising an industrial dispute complaining about the conduct of the Petitioner, pursuant to which Conciliation proceedings were initiated before the Conciliation Officer. During the conciliation proceedings held on 17.01.1991, the P