* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on : 09.01.2026 Pronounced on : 22.01.2026 Uploaded on : 22.01.2026 + W.P.(C) 11638/2023, CM APPL. 45428/2023 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajiv Shukla, Ms. Shivani Kapoor, Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Mr. Ravi Ranjan and Ms. Manisha Brahma, Advocates.

versus SH RAMPAL SO HARI RAM .....Respondent Through: Mr. Jawahar Raja, Ms. L. Gangmei and Ms. Meghna De, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

JUDGMENT

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/management under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking setting aside of the award dated 10.07.2023 vide which the Labour Court awarded compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- to the respondent/workman along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of award till its realisation, if not paid within 30 days.

2. The short issue involved in the present case is whether the Labour Court had territorial jurisdiction to enter into the reference. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Delhi Administration had no jurisdiction to refer the present dispute. The above submission is premised on the ground that the respondent had never been employed in Delhi. It is contended that the respondent was employed and posted for the entire period in NOIDA as a Chowkidar (security guard) by Housing Project Committee, NOIDA. The said committee was formed by 4 independent companies (i) Balmer Lawrie & Company Ltd. (ii) I.B.P. Co. Ltd. (iii) Bridge and Roof Company Ltd. and (iv) Blecco Lawrie and Company Ltd.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has defended the impugned judgment and submitted that the petitioner is estopped from raising the issue of territorial jurisdiction as the said issue attained finality in the first round of litigation; although the claim application was dismissed therein, the contentions pertaining to territorial jurisdiction raised by the petitioner were rejected.

4. For appreciating the aforesaid contentions, this Court deems it apposite to note the background facts. The respondent had raised a labour dispute and vide notification dated 05.10.1991, the Secretary (Labour), Delhi Administration, referred the dispute for litigation with the following terms of reference:-

“Whether the termination of services of Shri Rampal is illegal and/or unjustified; and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?”

5. The respondent filed the statement of claim wherein he claimed that he was employed by the management since 26.12.1985 at the post of Peon and his last drawn salary was Rs.700/- per month. He alleged his services were illegally terminated by the management w.e.f. 01.04.1989 without any justified reason; although he was paid one month’s salary in lieu of notice, no service compensation in terms of the provisions of Section 25(F) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“I.D. Act”) was paid. He claimed reinstatement with back wages and the other consequential benefits as per law. The claim application was resisted by the petitioner by denying the employer-employee relationship between the parties. The territorial jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the dispute was also called into question by contending that the respondent was employed as a Chowkidar (and not a peon) by the Housing Project Committee in Noida, U.P.

6. The Labour Court, vide award dated 14.05.2009, dismissed the issue of territorial jurisdiction raised by the management by observing that the management had failed to bring on record any cogent evidence in support of its contentions; however, the claim application was dismissed by concluding that the employer-employee relationship could not be established and that the management was not an “industry” as defined under Section 2(j) of the I.D. Act. The said decision came to be assailed by the respondent before this Court vide W.P.(C) 5424/2011. The petitioner filed a counter affidavit q