Cent.Govt.Employees Consumer C vs Om Prakash & Ors.

$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: 07 September, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010643932005
+ W.P.(C) 10997/2005 & CM APPL. 9938/2012
CENT.GOVT.EMPLOYEES
CONSUMER C .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dipak K Nag &
Ms. Apurva Upmanyu, Advs.
versus
OM PRAKASH & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Chirayu Jain &
Ms. Onaizha Habeeb, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition is filed under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India, assailing the award dated 16.11.2004
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Award’ ) passed in I.D. No.
500/1997, whereby the Learned Labour Court directed reinstatement
along with the continuity of service of the workman/Respondent and
50% of backwages w.e.f July 1996.
2. Briefly stated, vide appointment letter dated 21.12.1989, the
workman was engaged as a helper on probation for a period of one
year, which was further extendable, subject to the workman's
satisfactory performance.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 10997/2005 Page 1 of 7
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
17:45:26

3. Vide order dated 13.04.1991, the workman was terminated from
service due to unsatisfactory performance . Since the workman was on
probation, there was no domestic inquiry or charge sheet against the
workman/Respondent.
4. Thereafter, the workman filed Writ Petition No. 2962 of 1992
before this Court. Vide order dated 03.05.1995, this Court observed
that the probation period of the workman was extended and, during
the period of probation, the services of the workman were not found to
be satisfactory and that the workman has alternative more efficacious
remedy by approaching the Industrial Tribunal or filing a civil suit, as
envisaged and that it is not possible to go into the disputed question of
fact while granting the workman the liberty to take appropriate legal
remedy while dismissing the same.
5. Pursuant thereto, the workman raised an industrial dispute
under Section 10(1)(c) and 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act. On
03.06.1997, the below-mentioned point of adjudication was referred:
“Whether the services of Sh. Om Prakash 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?”
6. The learned Labour Court framed issues, which are as follows:
“i) As per terms of Reference”
7. The learned Labour Court on 16.11.2004 passed the impugned
award wherein the termination of the workman’s service after
completion of the probation period without following Section 25(f) of
the Industrial Disputes Act was held illegal and unjustified. It was
directed that the workman be reinstated in service with 50% back
wages from July,1996.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 10997/2005 Page 2 of 7
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
17:45:26

8. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition has been filed.
9. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the workman
was appointed against a temporary post on probation for one year and
was never confirmed in service.
10. He submits that the workman was appointed as Helper on
probation w.e.f. 21.12.1989 for one year, extendable on terms and
conditions laid down in the appointment letter. Settled jurisprudence
holds that confirmation does not occur ipso facto merely because the
probation period lapses without an express order; continuation in
service after expiry of the initial period does not, by itself, amount to
confirmation, especially where the employer's practice (as with Sh.
Surender Singh Negi, confirmed by a specific Memo) shows
confirmation is always by express order.
11. Per contra , learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
workman vehemently opposes the present petition and submits that
the workman had initially joined the services of the petitioner in the
year 1985 and not in 1989, as alleged by the Petitioner. He contends
that the termination of the workman was illegal and arbitrary, as the
mandatory procedure prescribed under law was not followed by the
Petitioner before dispensing with his services.
12. He submits that the workman pursuant to the impugned award,
was reinstated in service and has been continuously discharging his
duties and drawing salary till date. However, the workman is
aggrieved to the limited extent that he has not been granted back
wages for the period from 1991, when his services were terminated,
till 29.05.2005. He contends that the workman has been awarded back
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 10997/2005 Page 3 of 7
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
17:45:26

wages only from the year 1996, thereby depriving him of the wages
for the intervening period from 1991 to 1996 . The amount of back
wages claimed for the period up to 29.05.2005 is stated to
be ₹2,79,963/- . In support of his submissions, he places reliance upon
the judgment of Delhi Cantonment Board Versus Central Govt.
Industrial Tribubal & Ors, 2006 (8) DRJ 75(DB).
13. I have heard both the parties and perused the material placed
on record.
14. The workman was appointed as a Helper on probation for a
period of one year, in terms of the appointment letter which is on
record. His services were terminated vide order dated 13.04.1991,
during the period of his probation, on the ground that his work and
conduct were found unsatisfactory. The workman raised no claim or
demand for over five years and issued a demand notice for the first
time only on 11.07.1996, pursuant to which the Claim Petition came
to be filed. The learned Labour Court, vide the impugned Award dated
16.11.2004, directed reinstatement of the workman with 50%
backwages, inter alia on the ground that the procedure prescribed
under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 had not been
complied with before termination.
15. It is well settled in law that even where a workman is on
probation, the protection of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 is attracted the moment such workman has rendered 240
days of continuous service in the preceding twelve months, since
Section 25-F draws no distinction between a permanent, temporary, or
probationary employee for the purpose of its applicability.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 10997/2005 Page 4 of 7
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
17:45:26

Consequently, the mere fact that the workman was on probation at the
time of termination did not absolve the Petitioner of the obligation to
comply with the requirements of Section 25-F, once the threshold of
240 days of continuous service stood satisfied. The reliance has been
rightly placed by the learned counsel for the workman on Delhi
Cantonment Board v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal & Ors.,
2006 (8) DRJ 75 (DB).
16. The learned Labour Court, in the impugned Award, has rightly
held that the requirements of Section 25-F had not been duly complied
with by the Petitioner before effecting the termination of the
workman. This finding, as recorded by the learned Labour Court,
forms the very basis on which reinstatement with 50% backwages
came to be granted.
17. It is an admitted fact that, while terminating the services of the
workman on 13.04.1991, the Petitioner did not pay any retrenchment
compensation. On the basis of these undisputed facts, the learned
Labour Court rightly held that the mandatory provisions of Section
25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 had been violated. The
Labour Court observed that the workman had completed 240 days of
continuous service and was therefore entitled to the protection of
Section 25-F, even though he was on probation.
18. However, even assuming that there was non-compliance with
the procedure under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,
such non-compliance, by itself, does not automatically entitle a
workman to the relief of reinstatement with backwages. Non-
compliance with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 10997/2005 Page 5 of 7
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
17:45:26

procedural infirmity, and the consequence thereof is ordinarily
compensatory in nature, and not restorative. The Hon’ble Apex Court
has repeatedly held that reinstatement is not an automatic or
mechanical consequence of an order of termination being held illegal
and that the relief must be moulded having regard to the nature of
employment, length of service and the surrounding circumstances of
the case. Reference in this regard can be made to the decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Allahabad Bank v. Krishan Pal Singh :
(2021) 19 SCC 227 . The relevant extract of the same is reproduced
hereinbelow:
“8. The directions issued by the High Court of Allahabad
for reinstatement were stayed by this Court on 23-8-2019
[Allahabad Bank v. Krishan Pal Singh, 2019 SCC OnLine
SC 2061] . During the pendency of these proceedings, the
respondent workman had attained age of superannuation.
Though, there was strong suspicion, there was no
acceptable evidence on record for dismissal of the
workman. However, as the workman has worked only for a
period of about six years and he has already attained the
age of superannuation, it is a fit case for modification of the
relief granted by the High Court. The reinstatement with
full back wages is not automatic in every case, where
termination/dismissal is found to be not in accordance with
procedure prescribed under law. Considering that the
respondent was in effective service of the Bank only for
about six years and he is out of service since 1991, and in
the meantime, respondent had attained age of
superannuation, we deem it appropriate that ends of justice
would be met by awarding lump sum monetary
compensation. We accordingly direct payment of lump sum
compensation of Rs 15 lakhs to the respondent, within a
period of eight weeks from today. Failing to pay the same
within the aforesaid period, the respondent is entitled for
interest @ 6% p.a., till payment.”
19. Hence, it is well crystallised that where the facts so warrant, the
Court is empowered to award monetary compensation in lieu of
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 10997/2005 Page 6 of 7
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
17:45:26

reinstatement, in such cases where reinstatement is not feasible and
where such relief of compensation would better serve the ends of
justice.
20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, though this Court upholds
the finding of the learned Labour Court that the discontinuation of the
workman’s services was illegal and unjustified, it deems it appropriate
to modify the awarded relief, especially considering that the
workman’s services came to be discontinued in the year 1991 and
almost three decades have elapsed thereafter. Undisputedly, the
workman has also superannuated on 15.08.2026 after being reinstated
pursuant to order under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947, and therefore the relief of reinstatement cannot be altered at this
stage.
21. In the opinion of this Court, in the facts and circumstances of
the present case, ends of justice will be met if the workman is awarded
a lump-sum compensation of ₹1,00,000/- in lieu of back wages. The
said amount shall be paid by the petitioner within a period of eight
weeks from the date of this order.
22. Accordingly, the impugned award is modified.
23. The petition stands disposed of in the aforementioned terms.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
SEPTEMBER 7, 2026
“SS”
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 10997/2005 Page 7 of 7
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:08.09.2026
17:45:26