Sanjeev Narula JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Narula, J.
1. This intra-court appeal challenges the judgment dated 02nd June, 2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) Nos. 16023/2004 and 5016/20031 [hereinafter referred to as the "impugned judgment"]. The impugned judgment decided writ petitions filed by both parties contesting an award rendered by the Labour Court which held the Appellant's termination by the Respondent to be illegal. In the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge dismissed Respondent's objections and endorsed the Labour Court's conclusion of illegal termination. Both the Labour Court and learned Single Judge declined to reinstate the Appellant to his former position, however, the learned Single Judge enhanced the initial compensation of Rs. 50,000/-, awarded by the Labour Court, to Rs. 1,50,000/-. It is this partial relief-specifically, the refusal to reinstate the Appellant-which motivates the present appeal.
2. Factual background leading to the present appeal:
Employment and Termination
2.1. The Appellant was employed by the Respondent organization on 05th July, 1990, in the 'Store Section' as a Hindi typist responsible for maintaining the challan register. On 09th August, 1991 the Appellant applied for the regularization of his employment. However, he was denied duty starting 26th November, 1991, prompting him to issue a demand notice alleging illegal termination and seeking reinstatement.
Unsuccessful Conciliation and Referral to Labour Court
2.2. Attempts at conciliation before a Conciliation Officer on 29th May, 1992, proved unsuccessful. Consequently, the matter was referred to the Labour Court by the Secretary (Labour), GNCTD, on 24th August, 1993, under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [hereinafter referred to as the "ID Act"]. The terms of the referral were as follows:
"Whether the services of Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta 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?"
Framing of Issues by Labour Court
2.3. Based on the parties' pleadings, including the Appellant's statement of claim and the Respondent's response, the Labour Court framed the following issues:
"1. Whether the management is an Industry as defined in Section 2(j) of the I.D. Act?
2. Whether the workman himself stopped attending his duty as stated in the written statement?
3. As per the terms of reference".
Labour Court's Decision
2.4. The Labour Court decided Issues 1 and 2 in favor of the Appellant. It held that the Respondent's management qualifies as an "industry" under Section 2(j) of the ID Act, and that the Appellant had not voluntarily ceased his duties, as had been alleged by the Respondent. Consequently, Issue 3 was resolved in favor of the Appellant, ruling it as a case of illegal termination under Section 25F of the ID Act.
Relief Granted by Labour Court
2.5. Regarding relief, the Labour Court declined to reinstate the Appellant but awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs. 50,000/-in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. The award, dated 9th December, 2002,2 became enforceable from 30th July, 2003, pursuant to Section 17A of the ID Act.
Challenge and Subsequent Judgment
2.6. Both, the R........