Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 29.07.2026
AMBAY PROPERTIES .....Appellant
Through: Mr.Om Prakash Gupta, Adv.
Through: Nemo.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, C.J. (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
2. This is an application moved on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of 79 days’ delay in re-filing the appeal.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the prayer made in the application is allowed. The delay of 79 days in re-filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
4. The application stands disposed of. CM APPL. 48557/2026 (for delay in filing the appeal)
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
6. This is an application moved on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of 15 days’ delay in filing the appeal. Digiltally
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the prayer made in the application is allowed. The delay of 15 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
8. The application stands disposed of.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
10. This intra-court appeal seeks to challenge the order dated 12.01.2026 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby W.P.(C) 12789/2023 instituted by the appellant against the Award dated 24.03.2021 passed by the Authority under the Delhi Shops & Establishment Act, 1954 [hereinafter referred to as the “Act”], Deputy Labour Commissioner, West District, Delhi, has been dismissed.
11. The facts of the case are in a narrow compass. The respondents invoked Section 21 of the Act putting forth their claims which had arisen on account of non-payment of the earned wages. The respondents, while filing their claims under Section 21 of the Act, stated that they have been working as ‘Helper and Mistri’ and their earned wages for the period between 01.10.2018 and 15.01.2019 had not been paid.
12. Notice was issued on the said claim petitions filed by the respondents under Section 21 of the Act to the appellant, pursuant to which the proprietor of the appellant – firm appeared before the Authority on 14.01.2020, whereupon copies of the claim petitions were provided to him.
13. From a perusal of the order passed by the Authority as also the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge, it appears that the appellant, despite putting in its appearance in the proceedings before the Authority, neither filed any reply to the claims of the respondents nor anyone appeared on its behalf on subsequent dates. As a result of which, the Authority passed an order on 06.03.2020 for proceeding with the claim petitions ex parte.
14. The respondents/claimants filed their evidence by way of affidavits stating therein that they were employed with the appellant and their wages, as disclosed in the claim petitions, were not paid. It was also stated that on account of non-payment of earned wages, a notice dated 27.09.2019 was also sent to the appellant through registered post with AD/speed post, however, no response was received from the appellant. The claim petitions filed by the respondents were accompanied by affidavits of the respondents, postal receipts as well as other documentary evidence, which included a bearer cheque dated 28.02.2018 for Rs.43,500/- which was said to have been issued by the appellant towards payment of the wages for the earlier period. The Authority – Deputy Labour Commissioner, accordingly, allowed the claim petitions and passed an Award on 24.03.2021 whereby the appellant was directed to pay the earned wages as claimed by the respondents. The Award passed by the Authority – Deputy Labour Commissioner is based on analysis of the evidence available on record.
15. At the cost of repetition, we may state that after receiving the notice of the claim petitions, the appellant, despite having put in its appearance in the proceedings before the Authority and also having obtained the copies of the claim petitions, did not file its reply; neither anyone appeared on its behalf which resulted in passing of the order dated 06.03.2020 by the Authority whereby claim petitions were ordered to be proceeded ex parte.
16. The appellant, thereafter, challenged the Award dated 24.03.2021 by instituting the proceedings of W.P.(C) 12789/2023, taking a plea that the respondents before the Authority in the proceedings under Section 21 of the Act had failed to establish employee – employer relationship which vitiates the Award passed.
17. Learned Single Judge, while noticing the facts of the case, has upheld the Award passed by the Authority concerned by the impugned order dated 12.01.2026. The learned Single Judge, in the impugned order, has categorically noticed that though notice of the claim petitions was received by the appellant and appearance was also put in the proceedings, however, no reply was filed, nor anyone had appeared on behalf of the appellant.
18. The plea taken by the appellant before learned Single Judge was that the respondents had failed to prove the employee – employer relationship, however, the said contention did not find favour with the learned Single Judge who, in the impugned order, has opined that the Authority concerned, on the basis of the evidence led by the claimants, had rightly found the claim of the respondents to be lawful. Learned Single Judge has also observed, while dismissing the writ petition by passing the impugned order, that this Court, while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, need not interfere in the findings of fact for the reason that writ jurisdiction is primarily envisaged to correct errors of jurisdiction committed by the inferior Courts or Tribunals.
19. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by learned Single Judge for the reason that it is a well established principle of law that in proceedings where a writ of certiorari is sought, findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless it is absolutely perverse or based on no evidence or on misleading of any evidence available before the Court concerned. In the instant case, the Authority, while deciding the claim of the respondents under Section 21 of the Act, has considered the evidence led by the respondents and as also noted that despite opportunity having been made available to the appellant, no reply was filed, neither any evidence was led by the appellant.
20. Thus, in our opinion as well, it was not a case where it could be said that the Authority had allowed the claim put forth by the respondents – claimants without there being any evidence or by misleading any evidence.
21. For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 12.01.2026 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 12789/2023. Resultantly, the instant intra-court appeal is hereby dismissed.
22. However, there will be no order as to costs.
23. The amount deposited by the appellant pursuant to the order of learned Single Judge dated 10.11.2023, shall be released in favour of the respondents along with interest accrued, if any, by the Registry on completion of requisite formalities, forthwith, if not already released.
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ TEJAS KARIA, J JULY 29, 2026 “shailndra”