$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010489872019 + W.P.(C) 13315/2019 and CM APPL. 54118/2019 SHAHI EXPORTS PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner Through: Mr.Deepak Thukral, Advocate versus SMT. NOORJAHA AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr.K.P. Toms and Mr.Subham Shaw, Advocates for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI O R D E R % 15.09.2026 1. The petitioner, which was management No.1 in the claim proceedings, has preferred the present petition challenging the Award dated 04.07.2019 as well as the dismissing its application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC. 2. Vide the impugned Award, the claim application filed by the workmen was allowed and they were directed to be reinstated. While respondent No.3 was directed to be reinstated with back wages, the said relief was not granted to respondent Nos.1 and 2. 3. Briefly, the claim application was filed by the workmen by raising an industrial dispute on which following reference was sent for adjudication:- “Whether the services of Smt. Noorjaha W/o Sh. Kasim and 04 ors. (as per annexure “A”) have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management; if yes, to what relief 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 22/09/2026 at 11:14:28 are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect”? 4. In the statement of claim, the workmen claimed that they had joined the managements and the details of their engagement with management No.1 are as under: As regards claimant Munna, the Labour Court noted that, despite being named in the reference, he did not file any statement of claim. Accordingly, the Labour Court held that he was not entitled to any relief. 5. It was further stated that the management was not providing service benefits and, when the same were demanded by the workmen, the services of the workmen were terminated on 23.09.2011 and 27.09.2011 without any notice or payment of earned salary for the period 01.09.2011 to 22.09.2011 and 01.09.2011 to 26.09.2011. The demand letters seeking reinstatement and other dues remained unanswered. On summons being issued, management No.1 appeared through its AR on 18.09.2013, however, it failed to file its written statement and was consequently proceeded ex parte vide order dated 24.11.2014. It was stated that management No.2 appeared and rather stated that the workmen were employed by it and that management No.2 had a yearly contract for supply of manpower with management No.1. The contract was stated not to have been renewed after 23.09.2011. In view of the pleadings and documents placed on record, the Labour Court came to 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 22/09/2026 at 11:14:28 conclusion that the employer-employee relationship stood established between the workmen and management No.1. 6. Insofar as the challenge to the dismissal of the application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC is concerned, a perusal of the application would show that the same was filed attributing the non-appearance to its own authorised representative. The application was filed after a delay of nearly four years and seven months. The receipt of summons not being denied, and the appearance of the AR being noted in the order dated 24.11.2014, in view of the inordinate delay and absence of diligence on the part of management No.1, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said order. Be that as it may, this Court has proceeded to examine the impugned Award on merits as well. 7. The only contention raised on behalf of management No.1 is that the Labour Court erred in reaching a conclusion that there existed an employer- employee relationship between the workmen and management No.1. It is contended that, in light of the stand taken by management No.2, the workmen were its employees, who were deployed at the site of management No.1. The said conclusion is liable to be set aside. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that management No.1, having failed to appear or contest the claim, the Award passed by the Labour Court is liable to be upheld. 9. The record reveals that, though the petitioner referred to the appointment letters and the ID cards, which were stated to have been issued by management No.2, the workmen had also placed on record their ESIC cards. This Court also takes note of the fact that while the workmen had claimed their initial appointments between May 2008 and November 2009, 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 22/09/2026 at 11:14:28 the stand taken by management No.2 is that it entered into a contract with management No.1 only on 31.12.2010. This would mean that at the time of their initial appointments, there was no such contract between management No.2 and management No.1. It was, in fact, admitted that the workmen were already engaged with management No.1 prior to the execution of the aforesaid contract. 10. In view thereof, this Court finds no merit in the contention. The same is dismissed. This Court, however, is also conscious of the fact that the termination of services took place in the year 2011. Keeping in view the passage of considerable time since the date of termination, as also the length of service and the wages paid, this Court deems it apposite to modify the relief and award monetary compensation instead of reinstatement. Even the counsel for respondents, on instructions, state that respondents are not willing to be reinstated. Reference in this regard may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Bhurumal1, wherein it was held that reinstatement is not an automatic consequence of an illegal termination and that, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, monetary compensation may be awarded in lieu thereof. 11. Accordingly, lumpsum compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- each is awarded to Sh. Ram Kishan Majhi and Sh. Tanveer Hasan, and compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- each is awarded to Smt. Noorjaha and Sh. Babuddin. 12. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of. 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 22/09/2026 at 11:14:28 13. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J SEPTEMBER 15, 2026 na 1 (2014) 7 SCC 177 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 22/09/2026 at 11:14:28