13 February 2025 Employees State Insurance Act >> Labor Law  

The Delhi High Court recently upheld a Labour Court award directing a management to pay Rs. 5,00,000 in compensation to a driver whose services were deemed illegally terminated. The case of M/s. Mohan Brothers v/s Mithilesh Pandey., centered on conflicting accounts of the driver's departure from the company and whether he received full and final settlement.

The driver claimed he was terminated without notice or pay after demanding benefits like an appointment letter, leave, and overtime pay. The management, on the other hand, argued that the driver voluntarily left his job and received full and final settlement.

The Labour Court framed issues based on these competing claims, including whether the driver had absented himself from duty and the terms of the reference. After hearing evidence, the Labour Court found that the management failed to prove its claim of voluntary abandonment and that the alleged settlement voucher was fabricated. The Court also noted that the driver had obtained other employment, but of a casual nature, and awarded compensation for the illegal termination.

The management challenged the award, arguing that the driver had falsely claimed to be unemployed and that he had accepted a settlement. They emphasized that they had offered the driver his job back. The driver countered that the voucher was indeed fabricated and that he never received full and final settlement. He also pointed to a Labour Inspector's report, which indicated the management had refused to reinstate him or pay his wages.

The High Court, in its analysis, reiterated the limited scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution in such matters, emphasizing that it's not an appellate court reviewing evidence. It then delved into the specifics of the case.

The Court rejected the management's argument about the driver's unemployment, noting that his subsequent work was not regular employment and that there was no evidence suggesting when he secured this other work. The Court also highlighted the Labour Inspector's report, which contradicted the management's version of events.

The Court then focused on the alleged settlement. It found the management's timeline of events—signing the voucher on one date and receiving payment later—unconvincing. It also pointed out the absence of any mention of the settlement in the management's reply to the driver's legal notice, and the lack of any record of the settlement with the Labour Inspector. Based on this, the Court agreed with the Labour Court's finding that the voucher was fabricated.

Ultimately, the High Court found no reason to interfere with the Labour Court's award. It upheld the compensation for illegal termination, dismissing the management's claims and ordering them to pay additional costs to the driver. The decision underscores the importance of proper documentation in employment matters and the limitations on High Court intervention in labor disputes.