Delhi High Court: In a petition filed by Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital (petitioner) also called ‘Management’ being aggrieved by award dated 14-02-2019 passed in Labour Industrial Dispute whereby the respondent has been held to be in continuous employment of the Management and was granted compensation on account of illegal termination, Manoj Jain, J., dismissed the petition and upheld the impugned order granting compensation as the respondent was employed with the Management.
The respondent claimed that she had been employed as a Safai Karamchari (sanitation worker) with the DDU Hospital (under the GNCTD) since May 2007, earning a monthly salary of ₹5,500. She alleged that despite continuous service and repeated requests, she was not provided statutory benefits like HRA, transport allowance, or leave. Her salary was also alleged to be below the minimum wage prescribed by the Delhi Government. Upon raising objections regarding these violations, she contended that her services were abruptly terminated on 25-04-2015, without notice or justification.
In response to her termination, the respondent raised an industrial dispute, which was referred for adjudication by the appropriate government vide reference dated 23-10-2015. The question under consideration was whether the services of the respondent was illegally and/or unjustifiably terminated by the Management and, if so, to what relief was she entitled?
The Management denied employing the respondent claiming that sanitation services at the hospital had been outsourced to a contractor, ACME Enterprises, who had unilaterally discontinued their services in 2014. It contended that following the contractor’s exit, daily-wage workers were temporarily engaged until a new sanitation tender was finalized in April 2015. The Management asserted that the respondent was not on its payroll, had no privity of contract with the hospital, and her name did not appear on any official worker list submitted by ACME Enterprises.
The Court found no merit in the challenge against the Labour Court’s Award and reaffirmed the established legal position that while the initial burden of proving continuous service lies on the workman, this burden shifts once a workman provides credible evidence and stands by it in uncontroverted testimony.
The Court noted that the respondent made clear and specific averments about her period of employment and also supported her claim by referring to cheques allegedly issued by the Management. Her testimony was virtually unchallenged. The cross-examination by the Management was “sketchy and perfunctory”, failing to discredit her stand. The Court also noted that the Management did not produce any records, such as the list of outsourced workers, details of daily wagers engaged post-September 2014, or even the contract with ACME Enterprises. The Management’s admission that it engaged daily-wagers after the contractor’s exit necessitated the production of records, which it failed to do. Hence, it could not credibly argue that the respondent was never engaged by them.
The Court emphasized the shifting burden of proof in industrial disputes and held that once the respondent discharged her initial burden, the onus shifted to the Management, which failed to rebut her claim. The Court observed that the Labour Court had reasonably exercised its discretion in awarding lump sum compensation of ₹70,000 instead of reinstatement, considering the long lapse of time since termination and the possibility that the workwoman must have found alternative means of sustenance. This discretion was consistent with judicial precedents that discourage mechanical reinstatement where it is not viable or practical.
Thus, the Court dismissed the petition filed by the Management, thereby upholding the Labour Court’s Award and held that the respondent was indeed employed with the Management and had completed 240 days of continuous service. Her termination was illegal and unjustified. The Labour Court rightly refrained from ordering reinstatement due to passage of time and instead granted a just and fair compensation of ₹70,000.
The Court found no perversity or illegality in the Award to warrant interference under Article 227.
[Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital v. Sangeeta, CM(M) 1438/2019, decided on 15-05-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Mr. Tushar Sannu, with Mr. Utkarsh Singh, Advocates
For the Respondent: Mr. Ankit Dwivedi, Advocate
