Certiorari jurisdiction cannot disturb factual findings unless perverse or unsupported by evidence.

The respondents claimed unpaid earned wages for the period from 01.10.2018 to 15.01.2019, alleging that they had worked for the appellant as “Helper” and “Mistri” and invoked Section 21 of the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954 (“the Act”).

After receiving notice and copies of the claim petitions, the appellant’s proprietor appeared before the Authority on 14.01.2020 but thereafter neither filed a reply nor appeared in the proceedings.

The Authority consequently proceeded ex parte on 06.03.2020.

The respondents supported their claims through affidavits, postal receipts, documentary material, and a bearer cheque allegedly issued by the appellant towards earlier wage payments.

The Deputy Labour Commissioner allowed the claims and passed an Award dated 24.03.2021 directing payment of the claimed wages.

The appellant challenged the Award in W.P.(C) 12789/2023, contending that the respondents had failed to establish an employer–employee relationship.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 12.01.2026, leading to the present intra-court appeal.

Whether the Award dated 24.03.2021, passed under Section 21 of the Act on the basis of the respondents’ evidence, was liable to be set aside for want of proof of an employer–employee relationship.

Whether the learned Single Judge, exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, ought to have interfered with the Authority’s factual findings regarding the respondents’ entitlement to earned wages.

Whether the delays of 15 days in filing and 79 days in re-filing the appeal deserved to be condoned.

The Court applied Section 21 of the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954, under which claims relating to non-payment of wages may be adjudicated by the competent Authority.

It further applied the established principle governing writs of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution: factual findings of a subordinate court or tribunal are not ordinarily interfered with unless they are perverse, based on no evidence, or founded on a misleading appreciation of the evidence.

The Court also proceeded on the principle that a party which, despite notice and opportunity, fails to file a reply or lead evidence cannot ordinarily challenge an adverse factual determination by subsequently disputing matters that could have been contested before the original Authority.

The Authority had before it the respondents’ claim petitions, affidavits, postal records, other documents, and material indicating an earlier wage payment by the appellant.

Although the appellant had appeared and received the claim petitions, it neither filed a reply nor participated further, resulting in ex parte proceedings.

The respondents’ evidence therefore remained unrebutted.

The appellant’s later contention that the employer–employee relationship had not been proved did not establish that the Authority’s findings were perverse, unsupported by evidence, or based on a misreading of the record.

Since the Authority had considered the evidence available and the learned Single Judge had correctly declined to reappreciate those factual findings in writ jurisdiction, no ground for appellate interference was made out.

On merits, it affirmed the learned Single Judge’s order dated 12.01.2026 and upheld the Award dated 24.03.2021 directing the appellant to pay the respondents’ earned wages.

The intra-court appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs.

The Registry was directed to release, upon completion of requisite formalities, the amount deposited by the appellant pursuant to the order dated 10.11.2023, together with accrued interest, if any, in favour of the respondents.