Mahendra vs Mcd

$~28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: 7 September, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010351292007
+ W.P.(C) 4369/2007
MAHENDRA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. M. N. Singh and Mr.
Vaibhav Jain, Advs.
versus
MCD .....Respondent
Through: Counsel (Appearance not given)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 56296/2026
1. Through the present application, the applicant / petitioner seeks
restoration of the above-captioned petition, that is, W.P.(C) 4369/2007
to its original number for hearing and disposal on merits.
2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed
and the petition is restored and taken up for arguments today.
W.P.(C) 4369/2007
3. Through the present writ petition, the petitioner prays as under:
“I) A writ of certiorari or in the nature thereof or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction thereby quashing the
relief part of the impugned award and modifying the same
and holding the petitioner entitled to reinstatement in service
with continuity of service and full back wages and
consequential benefits.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4369/2007 Page 1 of 4
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:07.09.2026
19:18:47

II) Any other, Order or Direction or such further orders or
directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in
the facts and circumstances of the present case.
III) to award appropriate cost/litigation to the petitioner.”
4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the only
grievance of the Petitioner is that even though his termination was
found to be illegal, only a lumpsum compensation of ₹12,000/- has been
granted instead of reinstatement by the learned Labour Court. It was
further urged that certain juniors/co-workers of the Petitioner had been
retained and regularized by the Respondent.
5. It is well settled that in exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution, this Court does not sit as a Court of appeal
over the findings recorded by the Labour Court/Tribunals. Interference
is warranted only where the findings suffer from patent perversity, are
based on no evidence, or are such that no reasonable person could have
arrived at them. Merely because another view on the evidence is
possible would not justify interference. Reference in this regard may be
made to the judgment in International Airport Authority of India v.
International Air Cargo Workers Union : (2009) 13 SCC 374 .
6. In the present case, it is not disputed that the Petitioner, worked
for only one year from 23.09.1998 till October, 1999, when his services
were terminated.
7. A perusal of the Impugned Award dated 08.05.2006 reveals that
the learned Labour Court held the termination to be illegal since, despite
working for a period of 240 days with the Respondent, his services were
illegally terminated without complying with the provisions contained in
section 25 (F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On the aspect of
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4369/2007 Page 2 of 4
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:07.09.2026
19:18:47

relief, the Learned Labour Court noted that the workman was
admittedly a casual daily wager, who worked only for a period of 1 year
and was being paid minimum wages. It was further noted that nothing
has been furnished to show that there existed any post against which he
could have been absorbed. Hence, the Learned Labour Court, awarded
a compensation of Rs. 12,000/- to the Petitioner.
8. The Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any perversity in
the above findings of the learned Labour Court. It is no more res-integra
that the observations of the illegal termination do not create an
automatic right in favour of the workman to seek re-instatement. Once
admittedly no post existed against which the Petitioner could have been
absorbed, the relief of re-instatement could not have been granted.
Though it has been urged that certain juniors of the Petitioner have been
regularized, the same cannot be a ground to regularize/re-instate the
Petitioner in the absence of a post against which such relief has been
sought. Hence, the approach of the learned Labour Court in awarding
compensation in lieu of reinstatement/back wages cannot be faulted.
9. However, at the same time, this Court is conscious of the fact that
the termination was in the year 1999 and the dispute has remained
pending for more than 2 decades. Thus, considering the totality of
circumstances, an additional sum of Rs. 50,000/- is directed to be paid
to the Petitioner by the Respondent (which shall be over and above the
compensation awarded by the learned Labour Court), within four weeks
from date of this Order. Since more than a decade has passed since the
passing of the Impugned Award, the compensation of ₹12,000/-, if not
already paid, is directed to be paid with simple interest @ 9% per annum
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4369/2007 Page 3 of 4
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:07.09.2026
19:18:47

from the date of award till disbursal.
10. Accordingly, the Impugned Award stands modified and the
Petition stands disposed along with pending application(s), if any.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
SEPTEMBER 7, 2026
‘KDK’
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4369/2007 Page 4 of 4
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:07.09.2026
19:18:47