$~J * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment pronounced on: 30.03.2026 + W.P.(C) 6739/2025, CM APPLs.30622/2025, 30623/2025 RAHUL PANDEY .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vinay Rathi, Advocate.

versus BADARPUR SERVICE STATION .....Respondent Through: Mr. Anil Kumar Hajelay and Mr.

Anant Kumar Hajelay, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

JUDGMENT

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing an award dated 03.05.2024 rendered by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court – IV, Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi, in LIR No. 2306/2022, whereby the petitioner’s claim for reinstatement and full back wages was rejected.

2. The factual background set out by the petitioner is that the petitioner was employed as a Salesman with the respondent on 30.11.2006. Allegedly, however, the respondent-management deliberately recorded a later date of joining and issued ESIC Card No. 11-7205618 reflecting an incorrect date of joining. It is submitted that despite repeated demands, the respondent failed to provide statutory benefits such as appointment letter, attendance cards and pay slips.

3. On 27.02.2020, while proceeding to his workplace, the petitioner met with an accident and sustained grievous injuries. Upon recovery, when the petitioner sought to resume duty, the respondent advised him to wait in view of the Covid-19 lockdown. After the lockdown restrictions were lifted, the petitioner again approached the respondent on 25.04.2020 to resume duty. However, the management continued to defer the petitioner’s rejoining and ultimately, on 25.08.2021, orally refused to reinstate the petitioner in service.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner served a demand notice dated 08.11.2021 upon the respondent which elicited no response. Consequently, the petitioner approached the Conciliation Officer, but to no avail. The Labour Commissioner thereafter referred the dispute to the Labour Court.

5. Before the Labour Court, the petitioner/ workman sought reinstatement, full back wages and consequential benefits. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the petitioner had taken several breaks in service, his last engagement was on 01.05.2017 and that the petitioner voluntarily left employment on 25.02.2020. It was further submitted that after a gap of nearly one and a half years, the petitioner re-approached the management on 26.08.2021 but failed to satisfactorily explain his prolonged absence. The respondent/ management contended that the petitioner/

workman had abandoned employment of his own volition.

6. In the above background, the Labour Court framed the points that arose for consideration as under:

“8. Thereafter, vide order dated 02.05.2023, the following issues were framed in view of pleadings of the parties and terms of reference:

(i) In terms of reference.

"Whether the workman Sh. Rahul Pandey S/o Sh. Ram Badan Pandey have been absenting from his duties on his own, and/or, if not whether his services have been terminated illegally and/or, unjustifiably by the Management and, if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?”.

(ii) Relief.”

7. The Labour Court examined the rival contentions of the parties in considerable detail and rendered a categorical finding that the petitioner/ workman had voluntarily abandoned the services of the respondent/ management with effect from 25.02.2020. It was observed that the workman had remained absent for a continuous period of approximately one and a half years without furnishing any cogent or satisfactory explanation for such prolonged absence. In light of the aforesaid, the Labour Court held that the issue of illegal termination did not arise, as it was not a case of dismissal or discharge by the management but rather one of voluntary abandonment of service by the workman himself. In this regard, the relevant extracts of the impugned award are as under:

“10. In order to prove its case, the claimant appeared as witness and filed evidence by way of affida