$~33 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010344332023 + W.P.(C) 11587/2023 & CM APPL. 45130/2023 M/S SECURITAS INDIA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Swetabh Sharma, Advocate versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondent Through: Ms. Archana Gaur, DHCLSC with Ridhi, Mr. Deepu Kumar, Advocate for respondent no. 3 Ms. Avni Singh (Panel Counsel GNCTD) with Ms. Harshita Raj and Ms. Vaibhav Sharma, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI O R D E R % 01.09.2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the management assailing the award dated 19.12.2018 passed by the learned Labour Court, Dwarka in I.D. No. 7075/2016, whereby the learned Labour Court held that the termination of the services of the respondent No.2/workman was illegal and unjustified and, in lieu of reinstatement and back wages, awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as monetary compensation. 2. The dispute before the learned Labour Court arose from the workman‟s claim that his services had been illegally terminated by 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 07/09/2026 at 14:04:25 management. On the dispute being raised, the following reference was made to the learned Labour Court:- “Whether services of Sh. Satish Chander S/o Sh. Puran Chander have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management; and if so, to what relief he is entitled?” 3. Initially, no statement of claim was filed, resulting in a „No Dispute‟ award vide Order dated 21.04.2015, whereafter an application for recall was filed, which came to be allowed. The statement of claim was thereafter filed, wherein the workman claimed that he had been working with the management since 07.12.2011 as a Security Guard at the last drawn salary of Rs.8,000/- per month. It was further claimed that he was made to work overtime without payment and was not provided statutory facilities such as appointment letter, attendance card, minimum wages slip, bonus, leave and pay slip. According to the workman, when he demanded the aforesaid facilities, his services were terminated on 30.08.2013 without any notice. The workman also claimed to have issued a demand notice dated 31.07.2014, to which no reply was given by the management. 4. The management appeared and contested the claim. Its specific case was that the services of the workman had not been terminated and that he was deployed at M/s Global Energy Pvt. Ltd. and when the contract with the said establishment came to an end on 31.07.2013, the workman was transferred to M/s Taj Mahal Hotel, Mansingh Road, Delhi. According to 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 07/09/2026 at 14:04:25 the management, the workman failed to report for duty at the said place and thereby abandoned his services. 5. On the aforesaid pleadings, the learned Labour Court framed the following issues:- i) Whether the workman abandoned his job followed by transfer by the management? OPM ii) Whether the services of the workman have been terminated illegally or unjustifiably by the management? OPW iii) Relief. 6. The workman tendered his affidavit in evidence and exhibited the documents relied upon by him. The management, however, neither cross- examined the workman nor led any evidence in support of its defence. The learned Labour Court, while taking note of the written statement, noticed that the employer-employee relationship between the parties was admitted and further observed that the management had failed to substantiate its plea that the workman had been transferred from M/s Global Energy Pvt. Ltd. to M/s Taj Mahal Hotel and that he had thereafter failed to report for duty. In the absence of any evidence in support of the said defence, the learned Labour Court held that the services of the workman had been terminated illegally and unjustifiably. However, taking note of the passage of time, reinstatement was not considered to be just and proper and, accordingly, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was awarded as monetary compensation to the workman. 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 07/09/2026 at 14:04:25 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the award, contended that the proceedings were initially pending before the learned Labour Court at Karkardooma, which were subsequently transferred to the Dwarka Court Complex, and the said transfer was not within the knowledge of the petitioner. It was contended that, on account thereof, the petitioner could neither appear before the learned Labour Court nor cross-examine the workman or lead evidence in support of its defence, resulting in miscarriage of justice. 8. This Court has gone through the pleadings as well as the records received from the learned Labour Court. A perusal of the proceedings shows that while the matter was pending before the learned Labour Court at Karkardooma, the management had already stopped appearing and lastly appeared at the stage of framing of issues on 27.07.2016. Thereafter, the matter continued to remain listed and was also referred to Lok Adalat, but the management continued to remain absent and was eventually proceeded ex-parte. The proceedings were thereafter transferred to the Dwarka Court Complex. Thus, the record does not support the contention that the petitioner was prevented from contesting the proceedings on account of transfer of the case to the Dwarka Court as the petitioner had already stopped appearing before the learned Labour Court at Karkardooma and had failed to avail the opportunity to cross-examine the workman or lead evidence in support of its defence. The subsequent transfer of 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 07/09/2026 at 14:04:25 proceedings, therefore, cannot be said to have caused any prejudice to the petitioner. 9. Even otherwise, the petitioner‟s principal defence before the learned Labour Court was that there was no termination of the workman‟s services and that, upon expiry of the contract with M/s Global Energy Pvt. Ltd., he had been transferred to M/s Taj Mahal Hotel, Mansingh Road, Delhi, where he failed to report for duty. This specific defence was duly noticed by the learned Labour Court. However, the petitioner neither cross-examined the workman nor led any evidence to substantiate the alleged transfer or to establish that the workman had been directed to report at the new place of deployment and thereafter failed to do so. In these circumstances, no infirmity can be found in the learned Labour Court‟s conclusion that the plea of abandonment had not been established. 10. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner does not dispute the existence of the employer-employee relationship. Once the petitioner set up a specific case of transfer followed by abandonment, it was incumbent upon it to substantiate the said defence by leading appropriate evidence. Having failed to do so before the learned Labour Court, the petitioner cannot now seek interference with the findings returned in the impugned award merely by reiterating the same defence. 11. At this stage, it would be apposite to notice the limited scope of interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 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 07/09/2026 at 14:04:25 227 of the Constitution of India. In “Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan”1, the Supreme Court explained the scope of a writ of certiorari and held that the power exercised by the High Court is supervisory and not appellate. The Court does not sit as a Court of appeal over the decision of the inferior tribunal and cannot reappreciate or reassess the evidence merely because another view of the evidence is possible. Interference is warranted where the tribunal has acted without jurisdiction, has committed an error of law apparent on the face of the record or where the finding is based on no evidence or is otherwise vitiated by a jurisdictional error. 12. Accordingly, no ground for interference is made out. The impugned award dated 19.12.2018 is upheld and the present petition, along with the pending application(s), is dismissed. 13. Let the awarded amount be paid to the workman within a period of two weeks, failing which the same shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum till realization. MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J SEPTEMBER 1, 2026 sn 1 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 07/09/2026 at 14:04:25