The General Manager Otis Elvators Company India L Td & Anr. vs Vinod Kumar & Anr.

$~7 and 8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 17.08.2026

# CNR No. DLHC010151962021
+ W.P.(C) 4395/2021
VINOD KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Mr. Ayush
Kumar and Mr. Aarav Raj,
Advocates
versus
GENERAL MANAGER, OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY
(INDIA) LTD. AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Savrabh Prakash, Mr. Utsav
Jain and Mr. Yashpal Manda,
Advocates
8
# CNR No. DLHC010213202021
+ W.P.(C) 6727/2021 & CM APPL. 21195/2021
THE GENERAL MANAGER OTIS ELVATORS COMPANY
INDIA L TD & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Savrabh Prakash, Mr. Utsav
Jain and Mr. Yashpal Manda,
Advocates
Mr. Aditya Sharma and Ms.
Shaini Bharadwaj, Advocates
alongwith Mr. Jatin Arora, AR
of the company
versus
VINOD KUMAR & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Mr. Ayush
Kumar and Mr. Aarav Raj,
Advocates

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:29.08.2026
17:46:46
W.P.(C) 4395/2021 & W.P.(C) 6727/2021 Page 1 of 8

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

JUDGMENT


1. The present two writ petitions are cross-petitions arising out of
the common Award dated 25.01.2020 passed by the learned Presiding
Officer, Labour Court No. XVI, South District, Saket Courts, New
Delhi. W.P.(C) 4395/2021 has been preferred by the workman,
whereas W.P.(C) 6727/2021 has been preferred by the management.
2. The dispute pertains to the employment and subsequent
termination of the petitioner in W.P.(C) 4395/2021, namely, Vinod
Kumar. The workman claimed that he had been working as a Helper
with OTIS Elevator Company (India) Ltd. since 02.05.1996 and was
engaged in the work relating to installation, dismantling and servicing
of lifts. He claimed that he had worked continuously with the
management for more than five years and that his services were being
utilised in the regular/perennial work of the management. The
workman claimed that he was directly employed by OTIS Elevator
Company (India) Ltd. and that his salary was being paid by the said
management. His last salary, for the month of November 2002, was
stated to be Rs.3,410/- per month. The workman further claimed that
his services were illegally terminated on 31.12.2002 without
complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947.
3. The management, however, disputed the existence of any
employer-employee relationship with the workman. Its case was that
OTIS Elevator Company (India) Ltd. engaged independent contractors
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:29.08.2026
17:46:46
W.P.(C) 4395/2021 & W.P.(C) 6727/2021 Page 2 of 8

for carrying out installation and dismantling work at its client sites and
that M/s Satyam Management Service was one such contractor
(hereafter, the ‘Contractor’). The management pleaded that the
workman had been engaged by the Contractor and was working under
its supervision and control. It was stated that the workman had applied
for employment with Contractor, was issued an appointment letter and
identity card by the Contractor, and that the Contractor maintained his
attendance and paid his wages. The record also shows that the
contractor had employed about 10-11 persons at the relevant time.
4. The contract between OTIS Elevator Company (India) Ltd. and
Contractor came to an end on 25.11.2002. Thereafter, the Contractor
issued a termination letter dated 31.12.2002 to the workman and
offered him a sum of Rs.12,898.39/- towards wages, notice pay and
retrenchment compensation. According to Contractor, the workman
refused to accept the said amount, whereupon the payment was sent to
him by post and was again offered subsequently. The Contractor
maintained that the termination was thus in accordance with law. The
workman, on the other hand, disputed that he was an employee of the
Contractor and alleged that the Contractor had merely been projected
as an intermediary. He claimed that he had in fact worked under OTIS
Elevator Company (India) Ltd. and that the documents relied upon by
Contractor to show an employer-employee relationship between the
workman and the contractor were not genuine. He consequently raised
an industrial dispute, pursuant to which the following reference was
made to the learned Labour Court:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:29.08.2026
17:46:46
W.P.(C) 4395/2021 & W.P.(C) 6727/2021 Page 3 of 8

“Whether the services of Sh. Vinod Kumar S/o Late Sh. Udami Ram,
have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the
management and if so, to what sum as monetary relief along with the
consequential benefits in terms of existing laws/Govt. notification
and to what other relief he is entitled to and what directions are
necessary in this respect?”

5. The learned Labour Court, however, upon appreciation of the
evidence, returned a finding that the relationship of employer and
employee existed between the workman and the management. In
particular, the learned Labour Court took note of the fact that the PF
and ESI contributions in respect of the workmen had been deposited
using the code of the principal employer and, upon appreciation of the
testimony of the Contractor's witness, concluded that the control and
supervision of the workmen rested with the management. On that
basis, the issue relating to the employer-employee relationship was
decided in favour of the workman. Having held the termination to be
illegal for non-compliance with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, the learned Labour Court considered the question of relief.
Taking into account, inter alia, the long passage of time and the
circumstances noticed in the Award, it declined to grant reinstatement
and instead awarded a lump-sum compensation of Rs.5,50,000/- to the
workman. The said compensation was awarded in lieu of the benefits
claimed towards reinstatement.
6. Learned counsel for the management submits that the learned
Labour Court erred in returning a finding of employer-employee
relationship between the workman and the management. It is
contended that the workman was admittedly engaged by the
Contractor, who had issued his appointment letter, paid his wages and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:29.08.2026
17:46:46
W.P.(C) 4395/2021 & W.P.(C) 6727/2021 Page 4 of 8

exercised control and supervision over his work. It is further submitted
that the workman had himself not pleaded that the contract between
the management and Contractor was sham or that he was contract
labour under the direct control and supervision of the management.
7. Learned counsel for the management further submits that the
learned Labour Court erred in relying upon material relating to PF and
ESI contributions deposited under the code of the management and in
relying upon the statement of a witness examined in another matter. It
is contended that such material, by itself, could not establish the
necessary element of control and supervision. It is also submitted that
the workman was working at client sites and there was no evidence to
show that any employee of the management was exercising control or
supervision over him at such sites.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the workman submits
that the learned Labour Court, upon appreciation of the testimony of
the contractor's witness and the other material before it, rightly
concluded that the arrangement with the contractor was not genuine
insofar as the workman's employment was concerned. The workman
also challenges the denial of reinstatement and submits that, having
held the termination to be illegal, the learned Labour Court ought to
have granted reinstatement with consequential benefits.
9. This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the
record.
10. So far as the challenge raised by the management to the finding
regarding the employer-employee relationship is concerned, it is trite
that the jurisdiction exercised by this Court under Articles 226 and 227
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:29.08.2026
17:46:46
W.P.(C) 4395/2021 & W.P.(C) 6727/2021 Page 5 of 8

of the Constitution is supervisory in nature. This Court does not sit as
an appellate court over the findings returned by the Labour Court and
would not ordinarily re-appreciate the evidence merely because
another view of the evidence may be possible.
1
11. In Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan , the Supreme Court
explained the limited scope of interference in proceedings for a writ
and held that findings of fact arrived at by a tribunal upon appreciation
of evidence are not ordinarily open to interference merely on the
ground that the evidence could have been appreciated differently.
Interference may, however, be warranted where the finding is based on
no evidence or where there is an error of law apparent on the face of
the record.
12. In the present case, the learned Labour Court has considered the
material placed before it, including the evidence led by the
management as well as the contractor. The learned Labour Court
specifically noticed that the contractor's witness had entered the
witness box but found his testimony to be unreliable on material
aspects. It also considered the fact that PF and ESI contributions had
been deposited under the code of the principal employer and, upon
appreciation of the evidence, reached the conclusion that the workmen
were under the control and supervision of the management.
13. The challenge raised by the management essentially seeks a re-
appreciation of this evidence and a substitution of the conclusion
reached by the learned Labour Court with a different view. Such an
exercise is not warranted in exercise of the jurisdiction under Articles
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:29.08.2026
17:46:46
W.P.(C) 4395/2021 & W.P.(C) 6727/2021 Page 6 of 8

226 and 227 of the Constitution. The management has not been able to
demonstrate that the finding returned by the learned Labour Court is
based on no evidence or suffers from any such perversity or patent
error of law which would warrant interference by this Court.
14. The challenge by the management to the finding of illegal
termination, consequently, also does not merit interference. Once the
learned Labour Court found that the workman was an employee of the
management and that the termination had been effected without
compliance with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, the
finding of illegal termination cannot be said to suffer from any
jurisdictional error warranting interference in the present proceedings.
15. The grant of reinstatement is not an automatic consequence of a
finding that the termination was illegal. The Supreme Court has
repeatedly held that, depending upon the facts and circumstances of
the case, monetary compensation may appropriately be awarded in lieu
of reinstatement. The learned Labour Court, in the present case, has
relied upon the principles laid down in Jaipur Development Authority
2
v. Ramsahai , Talwara Cooperative Credit and Service Society Ltd. v.
3
Sushil Kumar , and Jagir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture
4
Marketing Board , amongst other decisions, while considering the
question of relief.
16. The workman has not demonstrated any perversity or patent
illegality in the exercise of discretion by the learned Labour Court in

1
AIR 1964 SC 477
2
(2006) 11 SCC 684
3
(2008) 9 SCC 486
4
(2009) 15 SCC 327
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:29.08.2026
17:46:46
W.P.(C) 4395/2021 & W.P.(C) 6727/2021 Page 7 of 8

awarding compensation instead of reinstatement. Merely because a
different relief could also have been granted would not furnish a
ground for interference in writ jurisdiction. Notably, the termination
pertains to the year 2002.
17. Consequently, neither of the two petitions makes out a case for
interference with the impugned Award. Consequently, both petitions
are dismissed.
18. The amount including the interest accrued, already deposited
before this Court pursuant to the order dated 19.07.2021, shall be
released to the workman within 4 weeks.
19. The pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.


(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
JUDGE
AUGUST 17, 2026
na

corrected and uploaded on 29.08.2026
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:29.08.2026
17:46:46
W.P.(C) 4395/2021 & W.P.(C) 6727/2021 Page 8 of 8