* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment Reserved on: 13.11.2025

Judgment pronounced on: 28.11.2025

+ W.P.(C) 1199/2015 & CM APPL. 2096/2015

M/S AGGARWAL HOTELS PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner

Through: Mr.Anil K.Hajelay, Advocate

versus

ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER & ANR.....Respondents

Through: Mr. Vinay Singh and Ms. Sangita Singh, Advocates for R-2.

+ W.P.(C) 2874/2018 & CM APPL. 11598/2018

AGGARWAL HOTELS PVT LTD .....Petitioner

Through: Mr.Anil K.Hajelay, Advocate

versus

ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER & ANR.....Respondents

Through: Mr. Vinay Singh and Ms. Sangita Singh, Advocates for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA

JUDGMENT

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. The present writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been filed by the petitioner assailing Annexure P-1 in both the petitions, i.e., Orders dated 07.04.2014 in F.25(1)/ALC/PW/DLC/NDD/2014/934 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (New Delhi), Labour Department, Govt. of NCT Delhi and 21.02.2014 in F/l/PW/ALC/NDD/2017/466 passed by Deputy Labour Commissioner, District New Delhi, Women and Child Development Department Building, New Delhi, whereby respondent no.1 while dealing with an application dated 14.02.2014 pertaining to the recognition of protected workmen declared seven office bearers of respondent no. 2 as ‘Protected Workman’.

2. The short factual background of the case is as follows: The petitioner is a private limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its office at P-16, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. The petitioner is involved in hospitality business and has two hotels, namely, M/s Hotel Alka and M/s Hotel Alka Annexe in New Delhi, and a restaurant, namely, M/s M/S Tavern on the Greens at Lado Sarai, New Delhi. The petitioner has approximately 80 employees. Respondent no. 2, claiming to be a registered trade Union, submitted an application dated 21.01.2014, i.e., Annexure P-3, before the petitioner on 24.01.2014, seeking a declaration of seven of its office bearers as ‘protected workmen’.

2.1. The petitioner sent Annexure P-4 reply dated 03.02.2014 to respondent No.2, inter alia, stating that the total strength of the petitioner was around 80 only. The maximum number of workmen who could be granted protection could not exceed five. The respondent no. 2 was also informed that five of the persons mentioned that their application were under suspension for acts of misconduct and that disciplinary proceedings were pending and in progress. It was pointed out that immunity could not be granted under the guise of the status of protected workmen. Annexure P-5 (Colly) contains copies of the suspension letters and charge sheets issued to the said five workmen.

2.2. The petitioner also stated in the reply that different set of persons were claiming to be office bearers of the second respondent/Union having the same registration number, i.e., 1150, thus creating doubts as to which Union was the genuine one. The petitioner, requested documents for verification, including proof of proper elections through which the persons named in the application were elected as office bearers. However, respondent no. 2 failed to provide any of the documents sought and thereafter, filed Annexure P-6, an application dated 12.02.2014, before respondent No. 1 seeking a declaration that the same seven office bearers be declared protected workmen.

2.3. The petitioner further alleged that respondent no. 2/Union had no locus standi to represent the workmen of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, Mr. Sita Ram Mishra was not the President of the Hotel Mazdoor Union bearing registration number 1150, since the same registration number was also being used by one Gopi and one Maya Ram, who claimed to be the President and Secretary, respectively, of the Hotel Mazdoor Union operating from a different address.

2.4. Respondent No.1, on the basis of the said application, issued Annexur