$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010143712020 + W.P.(C) 2298/2020 R.K. PATHAK .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Bhumica Kundra, Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Mr. Shubham Bahl, Mr. Nikhil Pawar, Ms. Kritika Matta,, Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Mr. Lovekesh Chauhan, ms. Anjali Bansal and Mr. Manas Verma, Advocates versus KNIGHT WATCH SECURITY LTD. AND ANR......Respondent Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI O R D E R % 17.08.2026 1. The present petition filed by the workman assails the Award dated 30.01.2018 passed by the learned Labour Court in LIR No.3195/2016, whereby the reference made at the instance of the petitioner was allowed in part. The learned Labour Court held that the termination of the petitioner's services was illegal and unjustified. However, instead of directing reinstatement with back wages, the learned Labour Court awarded a lump- sum compensation of Rs.20,000/-. 2. Ms. Prabhasahay Kaur, learned counsel, enters appearance for the respondent and submits that she has never received instructions in the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/08/2026 at 16:01:11 present matter from the respondent and that her presence was wrongly marked in the order dated 07.10.2022. She seeks discharge. It is ordered accordingly. 3. It may be noted that there has been no appearance on behalf of the respondent for several dates. Vide order dated 11.05.2026, taking note of the continued absence of the respondent, this Court directed issuance of Court Notice to learned counsel who had earlier appeared on behalf of the respondent. As per the office noting report dated 12.08.2026, the said notice was duly served. 4. Despite the aforenoted service and repeated opportunities, there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent. In these circumstances, the Court has proceeded to hear learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. The petitioner had claimed that he was employed with respondent No.1 as a Security Guard since 04.01.2014 and his services were illegally terminated on 25.04.2014. The respondents did not contest the proceedings before the learned Labour Court and were proceeded against ex parte. The petitioner thereafter led his evidence and relied upon the documents forming part of the record. Upon appreciation of the material before it, the learned Labour Court returned a finding that the relationship of employer and employee stood established and that the termination was illegal and unjustified. 6. While considering the question of relief, the learned Labour Court noticed the considerable passage of time since the termination and declined to grant reinstatement with back wages. It instead considered it appropriate to award lump-sum compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the petitioner. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/08/2026 at 16:01:11 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the termination had been held to be illegal, the petitioner ought to have been granted reinstatement with back wages. It is further submitted that the compensation of Rs.20,000/- awarded by the learned Labour Court is wholly inadequate and does not appropriately compensate the petitioner for the consequences of his illegal termination. 8. This Court has considered the submissions and perused the record. 9. The question that arises for consideration is whether the relief granted by the learned Labour Court warrants interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 10. It is well settled that reinstatement with back wages does not follow as an automatic or inevitable consequence in every case where termination is found to be illegal. The appropriate relief has to be moulded having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. 11. In Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board1, the Supreme Court recognised that reinstatement is not an automatic consequence of a finding of illegal termination and that, depending upon the circumstances, compensation in lieu of reinstatement may be an appropriate relief. The Court took into consideration, inter alia, the nature of employment, the length of service and the passage of time while determining the appropriate relief. The aforesaid principles are particularly relevant in the present case as the length of service in present case is only 3 and ½ months. The petitioner's services were terminated on 25.04.2014, whereas the Award came to be passed only on 30.01.2018. Even thereafter, considerable time has elapsed. The learned Labour Court, while determining This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/08/2026 at 16:01:11 the relief, was therefore entitled to take into consideration the passage of time and the circumstances prevailing at the time of the Award. The petitioner has not demonstrated that the discretion exercised by the learned Labour Court in moulding the relief was arbitrary or based on any irrelevant consideration. 12. The jurisdiction exercised by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is supervisory and not appellate. In Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan2,the Supreme Court held that the High Court, while exercising certiorari jurisdiction, does not act as an appellate Court and that findings of fact arrived at by a Tribunal upon appreciation of evidence cannot ordinarily be reopened. Interference is warranted only in the recognised circumstances, including where a finding is based on no evidence or suffers from an error of law apparent on the face of the record. 13. Applying the aforesaid principles, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned Labour Court. The petitioner essentially seeks substitution of the relief granted by the learned Labour Court with an order of reinstatement and back wages. Such an exercise would amount to re-appreciating the circumstances and substituting this Court's view for that of the Labour Court, which is not warranted in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. The petitioner has also not been able to point out any perversity, jurisdictional error or patent illegality in the reasoning adopted by the learned Labour Court while awarding compensation in lieu of reinstatement. Merely because a different relief could conceivably have 1 (2009) 15 SCC 327 2 AIR 1964 SC 477 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/08/2026 at 16:01:11 been granted would not furnish a sufficient ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. 14. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned Award dated 30.01.2018 warranting interference. The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed. MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J AUGUST 17, 2026 sn This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/08/2026 at 16:01:11