$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010456082023 + W.P.(C) 14751/2023 & CM APPL. 58673/2023 M/S SILCO AUTO MOTIVE SOLUTIONS L.L.P .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Manu Padalia, Mr. Bhanu Sanoriya and Mr. Ujjawal Chaudhary, Advocates versus SMT ANNU DEVI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Awadhesh Kumar, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI O R D E R % 13.08.2026 1. The present writ petition has been preferred seeking setting aside of the ex parte order dated 21.12.2022 and the award dated 08.02.2023 passed by the learned Labour Court in LIR No. 2205/2022. 2. On the present petition being instituted, this Court, vide order dated 10.11.2023, while issuing notice, also directed the petitioner to deposit the entire decretal amount. As per the office noting, the said order remains to be complied with. The only contention raised in the present case is that, after the claim was filed, the proceedings before the learned Labour Court were conducted in haste and the matter came to be concluded within four dates of hearing. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner admits that, upon receipt of summons, the petitioner was represented before the learned Labour Court on 08.12.2022. It is, however, contended that a wrong date was noted thereafter. The petition is accompanied by the proceedings dated 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 18/08/2026 at 11:52:48 08.12.2022, 21.12.2022 and 08.02.2023. 4. The digitized copy of the TCR was also requisitioned which shows that when the petitioner had appeared on 08.12.2022, the presence of Mr. Rohit Hooda, AR of the management was noted and the matter was listed for filing of WS on 19.12.2022. The petitioner has filed the entire record of the proceedings before the Labour Court except the order of 19.12.2022. Apparently, the same has been done for the reason that on 19.12.2022 also, the appearance of the said AR was marked, though, the presiding officer was on leave. In the considered opinion of this Court, it is rather suppression of a material document. 5. In these circumstances, the contention that the petitioner had merely noted a wrong date and, therefore, was unaware of the proceedings cannot be accepted. The record establishes that the petitioner had notice of the proceedings and was represented before the learned Labour Court on 08.12.2022 and again on 19.12.2022. Thus, this is not a case where the petitioner was denied an opportunity of hearing. Rather, despite having notice of the proceedings and having entered appearance, the petitioner failed to avail the opportunity granted to it. 6. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present petition is accordingly dismissed. The decretal amount shall be paid to the respondent, along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the award till realization, as directed in the impugned award. MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J AUGUST 13, 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 18/08/2026 at 11:52:48