Private garment company ordered to reinstate two workers transferred out of Delhi
The Delhi High Court held that a private garment company illegally terminated two skilled workers under the guise of transferring them from Delhi to Gurgaon. It ordered reinstatement in Delhi, continuity of service and 50% back wages.
This page records what the cited court, tribunal and government records say happened. Findings belong to the court or authority that made them; this register adds none of its own. Names of private individuals are withheld unless a naming gate clears them.
How we verify →The High Court's final judgment requires the private employer to reinstate the workers and pay 50% back wages.
What happened
The High Court recorded that the two permanent skilled hand-embroidery workers were removed from the employer's muster rolls after a purported transfer from its Okhla unit to Gurgaon.
The employer maintained that it had merely transferred them and that they failed to report at the new workplace. The Court found that the employer had not proved service of the transfer letters or any operational necessity for the transfer.
The Court recorded that no charge-sheet or domestic inquiry preceded removal of the workers' names from the muster rolls. It held that the transfers were used as a guise for illegal termination.
The Court set aside the Labour Court award and directed reinstatement in Delhi with continuity of service and 50% back wages.
What the record says
“On the contrary, the material on record demonstrates that the workwomen were illegally terminated from service under the guise of transfer.”
W.P.(C) 13060/2018 and W.P.(C) 13067/2018, paragraph 20 — read the full text
A peaceful economic act
This was a state-imposed consequence for a private employer's decision to transfer or discontinue staff. The record contains no allegation that the staffing decision involved violence, coercion, minors or harm to a complaining victim.
What we could not confirm
The judgment records allegations that statutory employment benefits and earned wages were not provided, but the operative ruling selected here concerns termination under the guise of transfer. The precise amount of back wages is not calculated in the judgment.