Rural Medicare Centre vs Arun Sunandi Through All India Labour Trade Union

Court
Delhi High Court

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on : 07.08.2026
Pronounced on : 30.10.2026
Uploaded on : 30.10.2026

# CNR No.DLHC010377822019
+ W.P.(C) 10051/2019 & CM APPL. 41582/2019
RURAL MEDICARE CENTRE .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Shambhavi Dwivedi,
Mr.Abhigyan and Ms. Vidhi
Kapoor, Advocates

versus

ARUN SUNANDI THROUGH ALL INDIA LABOUR
TRADE UNION
.....Respondent
Through: None.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

JUDGMENT
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the award
dated 13.03.2019 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour
Court-V, Dwarka Courts, Delhi , in ID No. 6210-16, whereby the
respondent-workman was held entitled to reinstatement with full back
wages, continuity of service and consequential benefits. Vide order
dated 08.02.2024, this Court, while noting that the respondent is
unrepresented despite service, was proceeded ex parte .
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 10051/2019 Page 1 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:49:12

2. The dispute was referred for adjudication by the Deputy Labour
Commissioner, Government of NCT of Delhi , in exercise of powers
under Sections 10(1)(c) and 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter, ‘the Act’), vide notification dated 29.07.2015. The
reference was as follows:-
“Whether the services of Sh. Arun Sanandi S/o Sh. Raj Sanandi has
been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management; if
so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in
this respect?”
3. The respondent-workman in his statement of claim stated that
he had been employed with the petitioner as a Junior Paramedic,
Grade I, with effect from 02.02.2009, at a monthly salary of Rs.8,900/.
He alleged that the petitioner had failed to provide him with various
service benefits and that, when he demanded the same, his services
were terminated on 01.10.2014 without notice.
4. The learned Labour Court framed issues, inter alia , as to
whether the claim was not maintainable in view of Section 2(oo)(bb)
of the Act and whether the services of the respondent-workman had
been terminated illegally or unjustifiably.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned
Labour Court failed to appreciate that the respondent-workman was
engaged on a contractual basis and that the terms of his employment
were renewed from time to time. It is contended that the agreement
dated 04.04.2014 extended his employment for six months, up to
03.10.2014, and that the services came to an end upon expiry of the
contractual period. The petitioner submits that such termination falls
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 10051/2019 Page 2 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:49:12

within the exception under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act and, therefore,
does not constitute retrenchment. Further reliance is placed on the
1
decision of S.M. Nilajkar v. Telecom District Manager, Karnataka .
6. In the present case, the principal issue which arises for
consideration is whether the termination of the respondent-workman's
services falls within the exception carved out under Section 2(oo)(bb)
of the Act. A further issue which requires consideration is whether the
findings returned by the learned Labour Court, warrant interference in
the exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India.
7. Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act provides that termination of a
workman’s services on the expiry of his employment contract does not
amount to retrenchment, provided the termination is in accordance
with the terms of the contract. Therefore, to rely on this provision, the
petitioner must establish that the respondent-workman’s employment
was for a fixed period and that his services came to an end upon expiry
of that period.
8. In the present case, it is not disputed that the respondent-
workman was employed with the petitioner as a Junior Paramedic
from the year 2009 and continued in employment until October 2014.
9. The learned Labour Court noted that the petitioner had failed to
produce documentary material establishing the alleged extensions of
the respondent-workman's probation from time to time. It further
observed that no communication had been issued to the respondent-

1
(2003) 4 SCC 27
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 10051/2019 Page 3 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:49:12

workman explaining the extension of his probation. The learned
Labour Court also considered the agreement dated 04.04.2014 and
declined to rely upon the same, noting that the original document had
not been produced and that the respondent-workman had not been
confronted with the document or his purported signatures thereon.
10. The respondent-workman continued in employment from the
year 2009 to 2014. However, this alone does not determine whether
Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act applies. The petitioner must establish that
the respondent-workman’s services came to an end upon expiry of his
contract. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to establish the
terms of the contract relied upon. Therefore, the petitioner cannot
claim the benefit of Section 2(oo)(bb) merely by stating that the
respondent-workman was employed on a contractual or probationary
basis. The petitioner has not demonstrated how the evidence on record
establishes that the respondent-workman’s services came to an end in
circumstances falling within the statutory exception.
11. In S.M. Nilajkar ( supra ), the Supreme Court considered the
scope of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act. The applicability of the
exception must be determined with reference to the nature of the
engagement and the terms governing the cessation of employment. In
the present case, the petitioner has failed to establish that the
respondent-workman’s services came to an end upon expiry of a duly
established contractual term. The learned Labour Court, after
considering the evidence on record, found that the alleged extensions
of probation had not been established and that the agreement dated
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 10051/2019 Page 4 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:49:12

04.04.2014 had not been duly proved. The petitioner has not
demonstrated any perversity or patent illegality in these findings.
12. The aforesaid findings must also be examined in the context of
the limited scope of interference by this Court in the exercise of its
jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. In
2
Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan , the Supreme Court held that the
jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 is supervisory and not
appellate in nature. Findings of fact recorded by a Tribunal cannot be
reopened merely because the evidence could have been appreciated
differently. Interference is warranted where a finding is based on no
evidence, material or admissible evidence has been improperly dealt
with, or an error of law apparent on the face of the record is made out.
Accordingly, the question is whether the petitioner has demonstrated
any such error in the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court so
as to warrant interference with the impugned award has not been made
out.
13. Insofar as the relief of reinstatement with full back wages is
concerned, the petitioner had, at the initial stage of the proceedings
before this Court, which is recorded vide order dated 17.09.2019,
contended that the respondent-workman had been gainfully employed
elsewhere since October 2014. However, the said contention, in the
absence of supporting material establishing gainful employment,
cannot by itself furnish a ground for setting aside the relief granted by
the learned Labour Court.

2
AIR 1964 SC 477
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 10051/2019 Page 5 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:49:12

14. It is further noted that, pursuant to the award dated 13.03.2019,
the Labour Officer (South District), Government of NCT of Delhi ,
issued a notice dated 02.09.2019 under Section 33-C(1) of the Act,
calling upon the petitioner to implement the award. The notice records
that the respondent-workman had calculated the wages payable to him
at Rs. 7,30,966/-. The petitioner was directed to comply with the
award, failing which recovery proceedings would be initiated.
15. The aforesaid amount represents the computation of wages
claimed by the respondent-workman pursuant to the award and is not,
by itself, a determination of compensation in lieu of reinstatement.
16. The relief of reinstatement with back wages does not follow as
an automatic consequence of a finding of illegal termination. In Jagbir
3
Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board , and Bharat
4
Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Bhurumal , the Supreme Court recognised
that monetary compensation may, in appropriate cases, be awarded in
lieu of reinstatement. The nature of employment, length of service, the
passage of time since termination and the facts and circumstances of
each case are relevant considerations in determining the appropriate
relief.
17. In the present case, the respondent-workman was employed
with the petitioner from February 2009 until October 2014. The award
directing reinstatement was passed on 13.03.2019, and the present writ
petition has remained pending thereafter. Having regard to the
considerable passage of time since the cessation of employment, the

3
(2009) 15 SCC 327
4
(2014) 7 SCC 177
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 10051/2019 Page 6 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:49:12

Court is required to consider whether reinstatement at this stage would
be an appropriate and effective relief. At the same time, the duration of
the respondent-workman’s employment and the circumstances in
which his services were terminated cannot be overlooked.
18. In these circumstances, while the finding of the learned Labour
Court that the termination was illegal does not warrant interference,
this Court is of the view that monetary compensation in lieu of
reinstatement would meet the ends of justice. Therefore, a lump-sum
compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- is awarded in lieu of reinstatement.
Let the said amount be paid within a period of 4 weeks whereafter it
will carry an interest @9% p.a.
19. In view of the foregoing discussion, the award dated 13.03.2019
is modified to the aforesaid extent.
20. The pending application also stands disposed of.

(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 30, 2026
na
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 10051/2019 Page 7 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:49:12