* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 14.01.2026 + W.P.(C) 17481/2022 and CM APPL. 55773/2022 M/S AMAZON DISTRIBUTORS (P) LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr.Om Prakash Gupta, Advocate versus AJAY TIWARI .....Respondent Through: Mr.Rahul Sagar Sahay, Mr.Raghav Rajmalani and Mr.Pratham Arora, Advocates CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI JUDGMENT (ORAL)

1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the award dated 08.03.2022 (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘impugned award’), passed by Authority under the Delhi Shops & Establishment Act, 1954 (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘the Act’), in SE/ED/19/2020/12013.

Notably, vide the impugned award passed on 08.03.2022, the petitioner was directed to pay the respondent, a sum of Rs.50,291/-, being the respondent’s due earned wages alongwith additional compensation of Rs. 2,000/- as a penalty imposed upon the petitioner for illegally withholding his wages for the period 01.12.2019 to 15.01.2020. The petitioner was further directed to pay the said amount within 30 days from the date of passing of the impugned order, failing which recovery proceedings would be initiated as per the provisions of Section 21 of the Act. Subsequently, the operation of the impugned award came to be stayed by this Court vide order dated 21.12.2022.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that the respondent entered into employment with the petitioner company on 10.03.2008, in the capacity of a ‘Field Officer’ and that his last drawn wage was Rs.33,000/-. The petitioner withheld the respondent’s earned wages for the month of December 2019 and 28 days of January 2020. Thereafter, on 28.01.2020, the services of the respondent were terminated due to his alleged usurpation of a sum of Rs.33,00,000/- from various customers of the petitioner company during the period between 16.06.2019 to 06.12.2019. This was challenged by the respondent by filing a claim application, under the Delhi Shops & Establishment Act, seeking payment of his due earned wages of Rs. 68,538/-

alongwith interest from the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a two-fold submission; firstly, that in December 2019, the respondent admitted to misappropriation and embezzlement of funds entrusted to him by the customers of the petitioner and the petitioner company itself, by way of a handwritten letter. The contents of the said admission letter were also confirmed by the respondent, in his cross-examination dated 15.02.2021. Secondly, in further acknowledgment of his liability arising out of the embezzlement, the respondent had issued three cheques, amounting to Rs. 8,00,000/- each in favour of the Petitioner, towards repayment of the misappropriated amount, however, the said cheques were dishonoured due to insufficient funds, pursuant to which proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were initiated for recovery of the amount. He further submits that in view of the respondent’s admitted liability and the substantial financial loss suffered, the petitioner was entitled to withhold the respondent’s wages as a lawful set-off against the losses suffered, thus, making the impugned award erroneous.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent, per contra, submits that the reliance placed by the petitioner on the alleged letter of admission is wholly misconceived, inasmuch as the respondent has consistently disputed the authenticity of the said document. It is contended that although the respondent has admitted his handwriting and signatures on the document, he has categorically stated, both in his affidavit and during cross-examination, that the said document was obtained under coercion and force. It is further submitted that while allegations of embezzlement were raised by the petitioner, no guilt had been established, and in any event, Section 9 of the Delhi Shops & Establishments Act, 1954 does not permit deduction or withholding of earned wages on the basis of such al