M/S Mefcom Securities Ltd. vs Sh. Sarvan Kumar Lohia And Anr.

$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 21.08.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010994022018
+ W.P.(C) 3554/2018, CM APPLs. 47448/2018, 50119/2019

M/S MEFCOM SECURITIES LTD. .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Raavi Birbal, Advocate

versus

SH. SARVAN KUMAR LOHIA AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ayush Agarwala, Mr. Vipul
Singh, Advocates for Respondent
No. 1.
Ms. Avni Singh, PC, GNCTD with
Ms. Harshita Raj, Ms. Roshavi
Koshiyar, Advocates.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The present writ petition has been preferred by the
petitioner/management challenging the award dated 21.12.2017 passed by
the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dwarka Courts, in LIR No.
2080/16, whereby the reference was answered in favour of respondent no.
1/claimant, granting him reinstatement with full back wages and all
consequential benefits.
2. The dispute came to be referred to the Labour Court in terms of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:31.08.2026
19:01:07
W.P.(C) 3554/2018 Page 1 of 7

following reference:
“ Whether the designation of Sh. Sh. Sarvan Kumar Lohia S/o Sh.
B.L.Lohia is covered under the definition of workman as per I.D. Act
1947, if so, whether his services have been illegally and/or
unjustifiably terminated by the management; and if yes, to what
relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this
respect? ”

3. Briefly stated, the claimant averred before the Labour Court that he
was appointed on 17.04.2008 and commenced working with the
management as an “Accounts Manager” w.e.f. 16.05.2008 and his last-
drawn salary was Rs.29,000/- per month. He stated that the nature of his
work was purely that of an accountant, and included preparing
ledger/accounts and providing information to the management. He
averred that he had no power to instruct anyone nor supervised anyone’s
work. He alleged that when he demanded legal facilities, the management
became annoyed, pressured him to resign, and upon his refusal, illegally
terminated his services w.e.f. 13/16.11.2009 without giving any notice,
compensation, or paying his earned wages in violation of Sections 25F
and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter the “ID Act”),
solely to accommodate another individual, namely Sh. I. C. Jain .
4. The management contested the claim by raising a preliminary
objection that the claimant was not a “workman” under Section 2(s) of
the ID Act as he was designated as “Accounts Manager”, was drawing a
monthly salary of Rs.29,000/-, and was heading the Accounts Division
with complete administrative and supervisory control over subordinate
staff. On merits, the management denied illegal termination and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:31.08.2026
19:01:07
W.P.(C) 3554/2018 Page 2 of 7

contended that the claimant had himself abandoned his services w.e.f.
16.11.2009 after taking 2 days’ leave on 11.11.2009 and 12.11.2009, and
conveyed that he was leaving the job for better prospects.
5. In the aforesaid backdrop, the following issues were framed by the
Labour Court on 10.10.2011:
“ 1. Whether the workman is covered u/s 2 (s) i.e, within definition of
workman provided in the ID Act, 1947? OPW
2. Whether the workman himself abandoned services of the
management w.e.f 16.11.2009? OPM
3. Relief. ”

6. The Labour Court decided issue no. 1 in favour of the claimant,
holding that he was a “workman” within the meaning of Section 2(s) of
the ID Act. Qua issue no. 2, the Labour Court held that the management
failed to substantiate the plea of abandonment, as no show-cause notice
was issued, no domestic enquiry was initiated, and the plea of a
telephonic message from the claimant appeared to be an afterthought.
Consequently, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the claimant
with full back wages, consequential benefits, and interest @ 9% per
annum in the event of default. Aggrieved by the same, the management
has preferred the present writ petition.
7. Ms. Raavi Birbal, learned counsel for the petitioner/management,
contends that the claimant was the highest-paid employee in the
management organization, earning Rs.29,000/- per month. She further
contends that the onus to prove “workman” status lay squarely upon the
claimant, who was required to positively establish the performance of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:31.08.2026
19:01:07
W.P.(C) 3554/2018 Page 3 of 7

manual, clerical, technical, skilled, or unskilled duties rather than merely
asserting a lack of managerial functions. In this regard, she places
1
reliance upon Sonipat Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Ajit Singh and H.
2
R. Adyanthaya Vs. Sandoz (India) Ltd. & Ors. . She further contends that
the Labour Court erred in drawing an adverse inference against the
management for non-production of a final appointment letter, and that the
finding regarding illegal termination is perverse.
8. Per contra , learned counsel for respondent no. 1/claimant supports
the impugned award and submits that designation and salary are not
relevant criteria for determining whether the claimant qualifies as a
“workman” under Section 2(s) of the ID Act, but rather, the dominant
nature of the duties performed by him must be considered for determining
the same. He submits that the management failed to lead any cogent
documentary or oral evidence to prove that the workman discharged any
managerial or supervisory functions, and failed to examine any alleged
subordinate employees. He further submits that the plea of abandonment
is completely baseless, as no call records were produced, no show-cause
notice was issued, and no domestic enquiry was conducted prior to
striking the workman’s name off the employee rolls.
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

1
(2005) 3 SCC 232
2
(1994) 5 SCC 737
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:31.08.2026
19:01:07
W.P.(C) 3554/2018 Page 4 of 7

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
3
natural justice (Ref: Syed Yakoob Vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan ). The said
principle was reiterated by the Supreme Court in International Airport
4
Authority of India Vs. International Air Cargo Workers Union . This
Court has also considered the scope of writ jurisdiction in Ritz Theatre
5
Private Limited Vs. Ramesh Chandra .
11. A perusal of the record shows that while adjudicating issue no. 1,
the Labour Court noted that the initial offer of appointment dated
17.04.2008 (Ex. WW1/M1) explicitly stated that a final appointment
letter would be issued after joining. MW-1 in his cross-examination
categorically admitted that Ex. WW1/M1 was not the final appointment
letter issued to the claimant. Since no final appointment letter was placed
on record by the management detailing the nature of the duties assigned
to the claimant, the Labour Court drew an adverse inference against the
management under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
12. Furthermore, while the management claimed that the claimant was
exercising supervisory control over other employees, namely Govind
Beherwa , Virender Singh , and Reshmi Maurya , the claimant explicitly
denied the same in his cross-examination. Despite taking this specific

3
1963 SCC OnLine SC 24
4
(2009) 13 SCC 374
5
2024 SCC OnLine Del 3633
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:31.08.2026
19:01:07
W.P.(C) 3554/2018 Page 5 of 7

plea, the management chose not to examine any of the said employees to
establish that they were reporting to or being supervised by the claimant.
Nor did the management produce any documentary record before the
Labour Inspector to reflect the exercise of supervisory powers by the
claimant. In the absence of any primary material indicating that the
dominant nature of his employment was managerial or supervisory, the
Labour Court rightly concluded that the claimant fell within the definition
of “workman” under Section 2(s) of the ID Act.
13. With respect to issue no. 2, the Labour Court noted that MW-1
admitted in his cross-examination that no show-cause notice or letter was
ever issued to the claimant directing him to resume duties, nor was any
enquiry initiated against him. It was also admitted that the management’s
earlier reply to the Inspector under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (Ex.
WW1/9) made no mention of any telephonic communication regarding
resignation or abandonment, establishing that the plea of abandonment
was an afterthought. Thus, the Labour Court correctly held that the
management had failed to discharge the burden of proving that the
claimant had voluntarily abandoned his employment.
14. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
finding of illegal termination arrived at by the Labour Court does not
suffer from any perversity or infirmity warranting interference under writ
jurisdiction.
15. However, on the question of relief, this Court takes note of the
undisputed position that the claimant is now well past the age of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:31.08.2026
19:01:07
W.P.(C) 3554/2018 Page 6 of 7

superannuation, statedly being around 67 years of age presently. Due to
the passage of time, the relief of reinstatement has been rendered unviable
and impracticable.
16. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Birbal, on
instructions, submits that without prejudice to the petitioner’s
contentions, the petitioner consents to the payment of a consolidated
financial compensation.
17. Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances, including
the relatively short period of service rendered by the claimant being
approximately 1&½ years, the wages drawn by him at the time, the
intervening period of nearly 17 years after termination in the year 2009,
and his having since crossed the age of superannuation, this Court deems
it just and appropriate to mould the relief by modifying the direction of
reinstatement and back wages into a lump-sum compensation.
18. Accordingly, the management/petitioner is directed to pay a sum of
Rs.6,00,000/- to the claimant/respondent no. 1 within a period of 6 weeks
from today, failing which the said amount shall carry interest @ 9% per
annum from the date of this order until its realization.
19. The present writ petition, along with the pending applications, is
disposed of in the above terms.

(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
JUDGE
AUGUST 21, 2026
nb
corrected and released on 31.08.2026
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:31.08.2026
19:01:07
W.P.(C) 3554/2018 Page 7 of 7