* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 04.02.2026 + W.P.(C) 7660/2023 VIJENDER SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rishi Nandy, Advocate versus GLOBE DETECTIVE AGENCY PVT. LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rajat Arora and Mr. Sourabh Mahla, Advocates CORAM:

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

1. By way of the present writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner assails (i) the order dated 21.12.2017 passed by the Labour Court whereby the petitioner’s right to cross-examine the management witnesses was closed, and (ii) the consequent award dated 03.06.2022 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-III, Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi in LIR No. 1333/2016 (Old No.

140/2014), whereby the claim of the petitioner/workman was dismissed.

2. The challenge in the present petition is essentially founded on the ground that the impugned award rests entirely on un-cross-examined testimonies of the management witnesses, and that the denial of an effective opportunity of cross-examination has resulted in violation of the rights of the workman.

3. The petitioner was engaged by the respondent/management as a Security Guard in the year 1989. The case of the petitioner before the Labour Court was that his services were illegally terminated with effect from 07.09.2012, whereas the stand of the management was that the petitioner had voluntarily abandoned his services.

4. During the course of proceedings before the Labour Court, the petitioner examined himself as WW-1. Thereafter, the management examined two witnesses, namely MW-1 (Area Manager) and MW-2 (General Manager), who tendered their affidavits in evidence.

5. On 21.12.2017, when MW-1 was present for cross-examination, an adjournment was sought on behalf of the petitioner on the ground of non- availability of his counsel. The Labour Court declined the request and forfeited the petitioner’s right to cross-examine, closing the management evidence. Ultimately, by the impugned award dated 03.06.2022, the Labour Court dismissed the claim of the petitioner, holding that the petitioner had abandoned his services.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire foundation of the impugned award is the testimony of MW-1 and MW-2, which admittedly remained unchallenged solely because the petitioner was denied the opportunity of cross-examination. It is further submitted that abandonment of service constitutes misconduct and, in the absence of any domestic enquiry or disciplinary proceedings, the Labour Court could not have accepted the plea of abandonment merely on the basis of the affidavits of the management witnesses.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that opportunities were granted to the petitioner to cross-examine the management witnesses and that the petitioner failed to avail the same. It is submitted that the Labour Court was justified in closing the right of cross-

examination and in proceeding to decide the matter on the basis of the material available on record.

8. A perusal of the impugned award leaves no doubt that the findings on Issues Nos. 1 and 2 have been returned primarily on the basis of the testimonies of MW-1 and MW-2, which, as noted by the Labour Court itself, remained “uncontroverted and unchallenged”. In paragraph 28 of the impugned award, the Labour Court has expressly recorded that neither MW- 1 nor MW-2 were cross-examined by the petitioner and, on that basis, proceeded to accept their testimonies as the truth. Paragraphs 28 and 29 of the award clearly demonstrate that the conclusion of abandonment is directly predicated upon the absence of cross-examination. The relevant extracts of the judgment are herein below:

“28. It has to be seen that MW-1 Sh. Brijesh Kumar Dubey, the Area Manager of the management, in his evidence by way of affidavit has categorically stated that the workman abandoned the services of the management on his own as he was not intereste