W.P.(C) 11795/2019 1 of 5 $~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010438902019 % Date of Decision: 12.08.2026 + W.P.(C) 11795/2019 & CM APPL. 48645/2019 M/S VINU AUTO PARTS .....Petitioner Through: Dr. M. Y. Khan, Advocate versus UTTAM SINGH .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ankit Dwivedi, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking setting aside of the order dated 18.07.2019 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. XVI, Rouse Avenue Courts in LIR No. 443/2018, whereby the respondent/workman’s claim was allowed and the appellant/management was directed to pay compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- within 2 months, failing which to pay interest @ 9% per annum till realization. 2. Briefly, the workman had raised an industrial dispute on which the following reference came to be forwarded by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi: “Whether the services of workman Sh. Uttam Singh S/o Sh Bhuneshwar Singh have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management; if so, to what relief is he entitled Digitally SignedPREM MOHAN CHOUDHARY Signing Date:21.08.2026 08:11:35 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 11795/2019 2 of 5 and what directions are necessary in this respect?” 3. In the statement of claim, it was averred that the workman had worked with the management on the post of Store Incharge for 38 years and his last drawn salary was Rs.14,000/- per month. When he demanded service benefits, the management terminated his services on 09.05.2017. In fact, a police complaint was also lodged with the SHO, P.S. Kashmere Gate, on 03.07.2017 regarding the false allegation of theft levelled against him. 4. The management contested the claim and contended that the workman was involved in theft, for which he also tendered an apology, and therefore, the management discharged him from duties. 5. The Labour Court framed the following two issues: “1. Whether the services of the workman, have been terminated illegally or unjustifiably by the management? OPW. 2. Relief.” 6. In the proceedings before the Labour Court, the workman categorically denied the charge of theft leveled against him. He rather claimed that the management had got a blank paper signed from him. The management could not place the original apology letter on record and instead placed its photocopy. Further, the management’s witness who had produced the aforesaid copy admitted that he was not a witness to the theft, that he was the one who had written the letter, and that the workman had merely affixed his signature to it. In this backdrop, the Labour Court reached a conclusion that the management had failed to prove the apology letter. The Labour Court observed that the case of the management is not covered within the purview of Digitally SignedPREM MOHAN CHOUDHARY Signing Date:21.08.2026 08:11:35 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 11795/2019 3 of 5 Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as the workman had completed 240 days service in the preceding year and, to retrench the workman, the management had to necessarily comply with the provisions of Section 25F of the Act. It further noted that though the management claimed that the services of the workman were terminated on account of commission of theft, it later tried to cover the case by calling it retrenchment. It further found a contradiction in the allegation of theft, as while in the written statement it was stated that the workman was stealing auto parts, the management’s witness later stated that the workman was stealing polythene rolls. 7. Before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner/management submits that no inquiry was needed as the workman had furnished an apology and, in this regard, relies on the following decisions: (i) Maya Devi Vs. Presiding Officer and Another1 (ii) Lloyd Insulation (India) Ltd. Vs. Dilip Kumar Singh2 (iii) Sukhdev Singh Vs. Delhi Development Authority3 (iv) Sudhir Vishnu Panvalkar Vs. Bank of India4 (v) S.K. Maini Vs. Carona Sahu Co. Ltd.5 8. As noted hereinabove, the management’s case is dependent on the apology letter, of which neither the original was produced nor the person who accepted the same was examined. Thus, the apology letter 1 2016 LLR 191 (Punjab & Haryana High Court) 2 2024 LLR 9 (Madhya Pradesh High Court) 3 2012 (132) FLR 234 (Delhi High Court) 4 FLR 1997 (76) 523 (Supreme Court) 5 AIR 1994 SC 1824 Digitally SignedPREM MOHAN CHOUDHARY Signing Date:21.08.2026 08:11:35 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 11795/2019 4 of 5 was not proved on record. 9. Consequently, this Court finds itself unable to disagree with the findings returned by the Labour Court. The contention that no inquiry was required as the workman had furnished an apology is also found to be completely meritless. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner relate to voluntary resignation letters, which is not the case here. 10. It is worthwhile also to note the limited scope of writ jurisdiction in exercise of powers conferred under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled that while exercising writ jurisdiction, this Court does not sit in appeal over the findings of the Labour Court, but examines whether the impugned order has been passed without jurisdiction, is perverse, or is contrary to the principles of natural justice (Ref: Syed Yakoob Vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan6). The said principle was reiterated by the Supreme Court in International Airport Authority of India Vs. International Air Cargo Workers Union7. This Court has also considered the scope of writ jurisdiction in Ritz Theatre Private Limited Vs. Ramesh Chandra8. 11. Having held that the sole contention raised before this Court is meritless, the impugned award is upheld. The petitioner was directed to deposit 50% of the awarded amount with the Registry of this Court. The same be released to the petitioner. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner/management prays that 6 weeks’ time be granted to 6 1963 SCC OnLine SC 24 7 (2009) 13 SCC 374 8 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3633 Digitally SignedPREM MOHAN CHOUDHARY Signing Date:21.08.2026 08:11:35 W.P.(C) 11795/2019 5 of 5 pay the remaining balance amount to the respondent/workman. Let the same be paid to the respondent/workman within the time undertaken, failing which the remaining amount shall carry interest @ 12% per annum. 12. The present writ petition, along with the pending application, is dismissed. (MANOJ KUMAR OHRI) JUDGE AUGUST 12, 2026/pmc Digitally SignedPREM MOHAN CHOUDHARY Signing Date:21.08.2026 08:11:35