$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 17444/2025, CM APPL. 72034/2025 M/S DISHA VOICE AND SURVEILLANCE PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate along with petitioner. versus SH. NIRVESH KUMAR AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA % 17.02.2026 O R D E R 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing an order dated 26.05.2025 passed by the Authority (East District) under the Delhi Shop Establishment Act, 1954, whereby, the petitioner has been directed to pay an amount of Rs.4,62,100/- towards due earned wages to the respondent no.1/claimant for a period between 01.03.2020 and 31.12.2021. 2. The limited point urged by the petitioner is that there is no basis for calculating/computing the said amount. 3. On contrary, it is the case of the respondent no.1/claimant that without any cogent rationale, the petitioner has denied him salary for a period between 01.03.2020 and 31.12.2021. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to rely upon certain bank statements of the respondents/claimants to contend that the respondents have been paid during the said period. The bank statement/s relied upon, do not give any inkling as to the nature of the alleged payment/s. In any event, the stray payment/s allegedly reflected therein, cannot detract from the findings 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 23/02/2026 at 11:55:39 in the impugned order which are based on the consideration of the evidence and also the affidavit filed by the petitioner before the concerned authority. 5. Further, it is noted that in the affidavit of evidence filed on behalf of the respondent no.1/claimant before the concerned authority, it was specifically stated as under: 6. The only defence taken by the petitioner (as reflected in the pleading and the affidavit of evidence filed before the concerned authority), was that the respondent no.1 never reported for duty for the period between 01.03.2020 till 31.12.2021. However, in the present proceedings, a contrary 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 23/02/2026 at 11:55:39 plea has been taken that the respondent was paid salary during the concerned period. The petitioner should not be allowed to take such mutually contradictory pleas. 7. Be that as it may, it is found that the conclusion drawn in the impugned order is based on an intricate appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties before the concerned authority. This Court does not find any perversity or apparent error, so as to interfere with the same. 8. In the circumstances, this Court finds no merit in the present petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application also stands disposed of. SACHIN DATTA, J FEBRUARY 17, 2026/at 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 23/02/2026 at 11:55:39