Krishan Kumar vs The State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr

$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
st
% Date of Decision: 1 September, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC015619142015
+ W.P.(C) 10586/2015 & CM APPL. 26868/2015
KRISHAN KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Atul Kumar, Adv. with the
petitioner in person.
versus
THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
& ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Om Prakash Gupta, Adv.
for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)
1. Through the present writ petition, the petitioner challenges the
award dated 01.06.2015 (‘ impugned award ’), passed by the learned
Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. XVII, Karkardooma Courts,
Delhi, in ID No. 02/11, pursuant to which his claim that he was
illegally terminated was rejected.
2. Succinctly stated, the Petitioner raised an industrial dispute
claiming that he was hired as a Caretaker in the year 2002 by
Respondent No. 2 school, that is, D.A.V. Public School, Pusa Road,
New Delhi and was illegally terminated on 01.12.2009. He further
claimed that he was drawing a salary of ₹8,000/- per month.
3. The Respondent contested the claim and stated that no
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 10586/2015 Page 1 of 7
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:01.09.2026
20:21:39

employer-employee relationship existed between the parties as the
Petitioner had never worked with the Respondent. Undisputedly, the
Petitioner had at the time of alleged termination, already crossed the
age of 60 years.
4. Aggrieved by the termination, the workman raised an industrial
dispute. On 19.12.2011, issues were framed, which are reproduced
herein below:
“1. Whether this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain
and try the present claim? OPW
2. Whether the management is an “industry” as
defined under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes
Act? OPW
3. Whether there is relationship of employer and
employee between the parties? OPW
4. Whether the claimant attained the age of retirement?
If so, its effect? OPM
5. As per terms of reference”
5. The learned Labour Court took note of the evidence led by the
parties. The Petitioner tendered his Affidavit of Evidence as Ex.
WW1/1 and relied upon Appointment Letter dated 01.012004 Ex.
(WW1/A); Certificate issued by the Headmistress dated 17.04.2009
(Ex. WW1/B). He further examined two witnesses i.e. Mr. Y.B. Soni
as WW2 claiming to be President of Respondent No. 2 school and Mr.
Manohar Lal Kohli as WW3 claiming to be the Principal of the School
during the contemporaneous time.
6. WW2 -Mr. V.B. Soni deposed that, in his capacity as the
President of Respondent No. 2, he issued the Petitioner an
appointment letter dated 01.01.2004 (Ex. WW1/A), and that the
Petitioner was a regular employee who drew salary from the school.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 10586/2015 Page 2 of 7
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:01.09.2026
20:21:39

He further stated that he had issued the certificate dated 29.08.2005
(Ex. WW2/A) authorising him to represent the school in criminal and
labour matters, and identified the signature of Ms. Promila Verma,
then Headmistress of the school, on the certificate Ex. WW1/B.
7. The petitioner's second witness, WW3-Mr Manohar Lal Kohli
deposed that he had served as Principal of the school from 1996 to
1998, and thereafter as Joint Secretary of the management and
Manager of the School Managing Committee from 1999 to 2009 and
affirmed that Mr Soni was President of the Managing Committee. He
further stated that he had seen Ms. Promila Verma write and sign and
thus, could identify her signatures at Point A of the Certificate Ex/
WW1/B. He also identified signatures of WW2 -Mr. V.B. Soni at Point
A on Appointment Latter i.e. Ex. WW1/A and Authorization Letter
i.e. WW2/A.
8. The Respondent School also examined two witnesses. MW1-Ms
Uma Arora @ Alka Arora , claimed that she was the headmistress
since December, 1989 and deposed that the workman was never an
employee and no demand notice was ever sent. She also claimed that
there was no post of caretaker in the school. She had relied upon
several documents including the PF record of the employees which
did not reflect the name of the Petitioner.
9. MW2-Mr. Madan Lal , Senior Social Security Assistant, PF
Department, produced the summoned record of registration and
contribution of employees of the school under the EPF Scheme, 1952,
from the date of enrolment till December 2009 (Ex. MW2/1) and
deposed that the workman's name did not figure anywhere therein.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 10586/2015 Page 3 of 7
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:01.09.2026
20:21:39

10. Vide the impugned Award dated 01.06.2015, the learned Labour
Court, while adjudicating the reference, firstly, held that the
Respondent had failed to establish that there existed any employer
employee relationship. It was observed that the authority of WW2 to
issue the Appointment Letter was in question as he has not placed
anything on record to prove that he was the President of the School or
competent to issue such a letter. Additionally, the Appointment letter is
of 2004 when the Petitioner had claimed to be working since 2002.
Further, the appointment in big Institutes is generally not done by one
person and if the appointment was done by the Managing Committee
after passing a resolution, it has not been shown that the WW2 was a
member of the committee. Even, WW3, who had claimed to be the
principal of the school, clarified in the cross-examination that he was
the Principal of G.D. Soni DAV Senior Secondary School and not of
the Respondent DAV Public School. Additionally, though the
Petitioner had claimed that his gross salary in Rs. 8000/- p.m. and Rs.
7,250/- after PF/ESI/Funds deduction, however, the PF Record Ex.
MW2/1 does not reflect the name of the Petitioner. Secondly , it was
held that since the Petitioner failed to prove he was a workman, the
question of illegal termination did not arise. Lastly, as regards the age
of the Petitioner, it was held that the workman had already attained the
age of superannuation prior to his termination as he was 62 years of
age when his services were terminated. Hence, it was concluded that
the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
11. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 10586/2015 Page 4 of 7
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:01.09.2026
20:21:39

12. The learned counsel for the Petitioner/workman has essentially
urged that his engagement stood duly proved through the appointment
letter dated 01.01.2004 (Ex. WW1/A) and the certificate dated
17.04.2009 issued by the then Headmistress (Ex. WW1/B). He further
contends that there was no age of superannuation applicable to the
workman’s engagement or termination, and that in any event, the
petitioner had continued to work till the age of 62 years, which is
already beyond the very age of superannuation (60 years).
13. Per contra , learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 submits that
the relationship of an employer-employee between the workman and
Respondent No. 2 is disputed, and that the workman has failed to
discharge the burden of proving the relationship of employee and
employer, which lay squarely upon him. In any case, the Petitioner is
more than 70 years old now, thus, the writ petition, is liable to be
dismissed.
14. I have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on
record.
15. At the outset, it is apposite to mention 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
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 10586/2015 Page 5 of 7
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:01.09.2026
20:21:39

International Airport Authority of India v. International Air Cargo
Workers Union : (2009) 13 SCC 374 where the Hon’ble Apex Court
held as under: -
“47. It is true that in exercising the writ
jurisdiction, the High Court cannot sit in appeal
over the findings and award of the Industrial
Tribunal and therefore, cannot reappreciate
evidence. The findings of fact recorded by a fact-
finding authority should ordinarily be considered
as final. The findings of the Tribunal should not
be interfered with in writ jurisdiction merely on
the ground that the material on which the
Tribunal had acted was insufficient or not
credible.
48. It is also true that as long as the findings of
fact are based on some materials which are
relevant, findings may not be interfered with
merely because another view is also possible. But
where the Tribunal records findings on no
evidence or irrelevant evidence, it is certainly
open to the High Court to interfere with the
award of the Industrial Tribunal.”
16. Turning our gaze to the present case, it emerges from the record
that all the contentions raised have already been addressed in detail by
the learned Labour Court after analysing the evidence placed on
record. The foundational question was whether the Respondent
established that he was an employee of the Petitioner/Bank.
17. As discussed in detail in the preceding paragraphs, the
Respondent had failed to establish that there existed any employer
employee relationship. Though reliance was placed upon Appointment
Letter and Certificate issued by the Headmistress, the Petitioner could
not prove that the same were issued by competent authorities. Though
claimed that he has been working since 2002., no appointment letter
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 10586/2015 Page 6 of 7
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:01.09.2026
20:21:39

of the year 2002 has been placed forth. Additionally, WW3also did not
support the case of the Petitioner and stated in his cross examination
that he never worked with the Respondent DAV Public School.
Further, the Respondent has also placed forth the PF Record Ex.
MW2/1 which did not reflect the name of the Petitioner.
18. Thus, on the basis of the above, the learned Labour Court has
rightly concluded that the Petitioner has not placed on record any
cogent document to establish that he was employed with the
Respondent School and the view adopted is a plausible view. No
document has been placed forth this Court to demonstrate any
perversity in the findings arrived, as would warrant interference in
exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
19. Even otherwise, as appropriately noted by the learned Labour
Court, even if the workman’s case is taken at the highest, the
workman was 62 years of age at the time of his alleged termination in
2009 and would now be more than 70 years old. Therefore, even if it
is accepted that the Management is not a Government institution, still
the workman cannot claim any relief of reinstatement at this stage.
20. I, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned
award.
21. The present petition is, therefore, dismissed. Pending
application also stands disposed of.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
SEPTEMBER 1, 2026
‘KDK’
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 10586/2015 Page 7 of 7
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:01.09.2026
20:21:39