Shaurya Enterprises vs Sh. Jaipal

Court
Delhi High Court

$~7 to 10 & 53
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 24.08.2026

# CNR No. DLHC010423422021
+ W.P.(C) 914/2022 & CM APPL. 2580/2022,
CM APPL. 25434/2022
SHAURYA ENTERPRISES .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sudhir Nagar, Mr. Krihna
Dev Pandey, and Mr. Dhiraj
Pandey, Advocates
versus

OM PRAKASH .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ankit Dwivedi and Mr.
Rishabh Sharma, Advocates

8
# CNR No. DLHC010425252021
+ W.P.(C) 1275/2022, CM APPL. 3731/2022,
CM APPL. 23830/2022
SHAURYA ENTERPRISES .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sudhir Nagar, Mr. Krihna
Dev Pandey, and Mr. Dhiraj
Pandey, Advocates
versus

SH. JAIPAL .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ankit Dwivedi and Mr.
Rishabh Sharma, Advocates

9
# CNR No. DLHC010425262021
+ W.P.(C) 1276/2022 & CM APPL. 3733/2022,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:34:39
W.P.(C) 914/2022 & connected matters Page 1 of 9


CM APPL. 25262/2022
SHAURYA ENTERPRISES .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sudhir Nagar, Mr. Krihna
Dev Pandey, and Mr. Dhiraj
Pandey, Advocates
versus

SH. SUNDER SINGH RANA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ankit Dwivedi and Mr.
Rishabh Sharma, Advocates

10
# CNR No. DLHC010423432021
+ W.P.(C) 915/2022 & CM APPL. 2582/2022,
CM APPL. 25345/2022
M/S SHAURAYA ENTERPRISES .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sudhir Nagar, Mr. Krihna
Dev Pandey, and Mr. Dhiraj
Pandey, Advocates
versus

DHARAMPAL SINGH .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ankit Dwivedi and Mr.
Rishabh Sharma, Advocates

53
# CNR No. DLHC010426362021
+ W.P.(C) 1690/2022 & CM APPL. 4873/2022,
CM APPL. 23836/2022
SHAURYA ENTERPRISES .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sudhir Nagar, Mr. Krihna
Dev Pandey, and Mr. Dhiraj
Pandey, Advocates
versus

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:34:39
W.P.(C) 914/2022 & connected matters Page 2 of 9


BHEM SINGH .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ankit Dwivedi and Mr.
Rishabh Sharma, Advocates

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The captioned writ petitions are being disposed of vide this
common judgment as they respectively arise out of five awards passed
by two learned Presiding Officers of Labour Courts at Rouse Avenue
District Courts, involving identical claims of illegal termination made
by the respondent workmen against the common
petitioner/management, M/s Shaurya Enterprises , an LPG cylinder
distribution agency.
2. The disputes were referred to the Labour Court in terms of
largely identical references by the Deputy Labour Commissioner,
South-West District, Govt. of NCT of Delhi , as to whether the services
of the workmen were terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the
management, and if so, to what relief they are entitled.
3. Briefly stated, the workmen claimed before the Labour Court
that they were employed with the management, having joined at
various points between the years 1985 to 1988, performed their duties
sincerely, but were deprived of statutory legal facilities such as
appointment letters, leaves, ESI, and PF. They stated that upon raising
demands and lodging complaints before the statutory authorities, the
management became annoyed, stopped giving them work, withheld
their earned wages, and illegally terminated their services in 2014
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:34:39
W.P.(C) 914/2022 & connected matters Page 3 of 9


without serving any notice, charge-sheet, conducting a domestic
enquiry, or paying statutory compensation under Section 25F of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter the “ID Act”). They further
stated that Labour Inspectors visited the premises to get them
reinstated, but the management refused to take them back on duty.
4. The management contested the claims by filing its written
statements, raising preliminary objections that the workmen had not
completed 240 days of continuous service in the preceding 12 months
and that they had voluntarily abandoned their employment in 2014. On
merits, the management contended that the workmen joined on much
later dates than alleged and were drawing monthly wages of Rs.9,000/-
to Rs.9,200/-. The management stated that letters were sent to the
workmen asking them to resume duties, but they failed to report for
work and instead filed frivolous claims. The management maintained
that it never terminated the services of the workmen and prayed for
dismissal of the claims.
5. The learned Presiding Officers framed issues as to whether the
workmen had completed 240 days of continuous service and, whether
the workmen had voluntarily abandoned their employment, the terms
of reference, and relief.
6. Vide the impugned awards, the issues were decided in favour of
the workmen. Continuous service of 240 days was held to have been
established on the basis of admissions by the management and
exhibited attendance registers. Qua the plea of abandonment, it was
held that abandonment is a misconduct requiring a domestic enquiry,
and since no charge-sheet, show-cause notice, or enquiry was initiated
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:34:39
W.P.(C) 914/2022 & connected matters Page 4 of 9


by the management against any of the workmen, the plea of
abandonment could not be accepted, and the letters asking the
workmen to rejoin duties were held to be empty formalities. Holding
the terminations to be in contravention of Section 25F of the ID Act,
the workmen were directed to be reinstated with full back wages and
consequential benefits as per last drawn wages @ Rs.9,000/- per month
w.e.f. 01.07.2014. Aggrieved thereby, the management has preferred
the present writ petitions.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner/management contends that
this is a classic case of abandonment of service by the workmen. He
submits that multiple letters were dispatched to all workmen asking
them to resume their duties, and receipt of the said letters was duly
admitted during cross-examination. He further contends that the final
arguments could not be addressed before the Labour Court due to the
Covid-19 pandemic, that since the workmen did not complete 240 days
of continuous service, no domestic enquiry was required once the
workmen failed to report despite the letters asking them to resume
duties.
8. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent/workmen
supports the impugned awards and submits that the workmen were
victimized and denied entry after they agitated for their statutory rights
before the ESI, PF, and Labour authorities. He submits that the
management had failed to lead any cogent evidence to establish
voluntary abandonment of duties by the workmen, and that the Labour
Court had rightly held the terminations to be in violation of Section
25F of the ID Act.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:34:39
W.P.(C) 914/2022 & connected matters Page 5 of 9


9. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and carefully
examined the record.
10. Before proceeding further, this Court takes note of the limited
scope of writ jurisdiction in exercise of powers conferred under
Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled that the
challenge is not in the nature of an appeal, but to see if the order has
been passed without jurisdiction, is perverse, or does not follow the
principles of natural justice (Ref: Syed Yakoob Vs. K.S.
1
Radhakrishnan ). The said principle was reiterated by the Supreme
Court in International Airport Authority of India Vs. International Air
2
Cargo Workers Union . This Court has also considered the scope of
3
writ jurisdiction in Ritz Theatre Private Limited Vs. Ramesh Chandra .
11. A perusal of the record reveals that the finding qua completion
of 240 days of continuous service was arrived at on the basis of the
attendance registers produced by the management itself (Ex. MW1/1),
and warrants no interference. The grievance that the management was
not heard at the stage of final arguments is also without merit, as the
record reflects that repeated opportunities were granted to the
management after evidence had been led by both parties.
12. Further, the management witness, Sh. Harsimran Singh Bindra ,
admitted that the workmen had raised disputes regarding statutory
benefits such as bonus, ESI, and unpaid wages before the competent
statutory authorities, pursuant to which inspections were conducted.
He also conceded that the Labour Inspectors examined by the

1
1963 SCC OnLine SC 24
2
(2009) 13 SCC 374
3
2024 SCC OnLine Del 3633
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:34:39
W.P.(C) 914/2022 & connected matters Page 6 of 9


workmen had accompanied them to the management’s premises to get
them reinstated, but the management failed to allow them to resume
their duties.
13. Furthermore, while the management claimed before the Labour
Court that the respondents were regular monthly-salaried employees
drawing Rs.9,000/- per month who had voluntarily abandoned service,
it had taken a contradictory stand in its replies to the demand notices
that the workmen were merely piece-rate workers engaged on a per-
cylinder basis. The Labour Court rightly took note of these inconsistent
and mutually destructive pleas to hold that the management’s plea of
voluntary abandonment did not inspire confidence.
14. The Labour Court also took note of the settled position of law
that abandonment is a matter of intention requiring strict proof, and
where an employee fails to report for duty, the employer is duty-bound
to issue a charge-sheet and conduct an enquiry before striking off his
name from the rolls. In the absence of any show-cause notice, charge-
sheet, or domestic enquiry, the Labour Court rightly concluded that the
management had failed to discharge the burden of proving voluntary
abandonment, and held the retrenchment of the workmen to be illegal
for non-compliance with Section 25F of the ID Act.
15. In view of all the above, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the findings recorded by the Labour Court on the illegality of the
terminations do not suffer from any perversity or infirmity warranting
interference under writ jurisdiction.
16. However, on the aspect of relief, this Court takes note of the
particulars of the respondent workmen as compiled from the record:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:34:39
W.P.(C) 914/2022 & connected matters Page 7 of 9


S. Workman
Writ Petition No.
No. Name
Present Age
(approx.)
Alleged Date of
Termination
1. W.P.(C) 1275/2022 Jaipal 61 years 31.07.2014
Sunder Singh
2. W.P.(C) 1276/2022 62 years 31.07.2014
Rana
3. W.P.(C) 1690/2022 Bhim Singh 56 years 31.07.2014
4. W.P.(C) 914/2022 Om Prakash 63 years 29.08.2014
Dharampal
5. W.P.(C) 915/2022 63 years 29.08.2014
Singh

17. It is apposite to note that the events in question pertain to the
year 2014 and, in the intervening period of about 12 years, almost all
the workmen have either attained or are nearing the age of
superannuation. Further, it has come on record that, during the
pendency of the proceedings, the workmen were called upon to resume
their duties, but they did not do so. In view of the considerable passage
of time and the age of the workmen, this Court is of the opinion that
the relief of reinstatement with full back wages would not be
practicable or appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the present
case.
18. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner/management, on
instructions, submits that the petitioner consents to the payment of a
lump-sum compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- to each workman as full and
final settlement of all relevant claims.
19. Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances, the
nature of the engagement, the length of service rendered, the
intervening period, and the advanced age of the workmen, this Court
deems it just and appropriate to mould the relief by modifying the
direction of reinstatement alongwith back wages into a lump-sum
compensation. Accordingly, the petitioner/management is directed to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:34:39
W.P.(C) 914/2022 & connected matters Page 8 of 9


pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to each of the five respondent workmen.
20. Pursuant to orders passed by this Court, an amount of
Rs.2,00,000/- was directed to be deposited in respect of each workman
with the Registrar General of this Court. In the event the said amounts
stand deposited, the same, along with the interest amounts accrued
thereupon, shall be released to the respective respondent workmen
upon due verification, and the petitioner/management shall pay the
remaining balance amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to each respondent
workman within a period of 4 weeks from today.
In case the said deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- has not been made, the
petitioner/management is directed to pay the entire compensation
amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to each of the respondent workmen within a
period of 4 weeks from today.
Any amount remaining unpaid upon the expiry of 4 weeks shall
carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order until its
realization.
21. The present writ petitions, along with the pending applications,
are disposed of in the above terms.


(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
JUDGE
AUGUST 24, 2026
nb
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:34:39
W.P.(C) 914/2022 & connected matters Page 9 of 9