* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 11.03.2026 + W.P.(C) 776/2019 R.K. SOOD ART FRAMERS .....Petitioner Through: Mr.Saurabh Jain, Advocate versus SATISH BHALLA & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr.M.P. Bhargava, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 Mr. Tushar Sannu alongwith Mr. Fajallu Rehman, Advocates for GNCTD Mr.L.R. Khatana, Advocate (Amicus Curiae).

CORAM:

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

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the petitioner i.e., Management, seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 14.09.2018 passed by the learned Labour Commissioner(South), Labour Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, under the Delhi Shops & Establishment Act, 1954 [hereafter referred to as ‘DSE Act’].

2. Briefly stated, the claimants had filed a claim application under Section 21(3) of the DSE Act, wherein it was claimed that they were working with the Management, who were not providing them legal facilities under the labour laws. On such demand being made, their services were terminated after withholding their earned wages. It was further claimed that the Management did not pay their wages for the period from 01.07.2011 to

13.01.2012 and their services were terminated with effect from 14.01.2012.

3. It is further averred that the claimant (Satish Bhalla) was working as field worker and his last drawn wages were Rs.9,500/- per month. The unpaid salaries for six months and thirteen days amounted to Rs.63,321/-. The Management had paid sum of Rs.11,121/- as advance amount and the balance amount of Rs.52,000/- was yet to be received from the Management.

4. The second claimant i.e., Ram Chander, claimed that he was working as a Salesman and his last drawn wages were Rs.7,300/- per month. The Management had not paid his earned wages from 01.07.2011 to 13.01.2012 i.e., for six months and thirteen days, amounting to Rs.46,959/-. He had also received an advance amount of Rs.7,959/-, and after deducting the said amount, d the balance amount of Rs.39,000/- was yet to be received from the Management.

5. The Management was initially proceeded ex parte, however, the said order was later set aside and the Management was permitted to file its reply, wherein they denied the employer-employee relationship. Thereafter, the Management was again proceeded ex parte and a final order was passed in favour of the claimants. Subsequently, on an application being filed by the Management, the said order was set aside and the Management was allowed to contest the matter. The claimants were thereafter cross-examined by the AR of the Management, however, despite being granted several opportunities, the Management failed to lead any evidence, whereupon its opportunity to do so was closed and the matter was finally listed for written arguments.

6. On evidence being led, the learned Authority, vide the impugned order, allowed both the claims.

7. While assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner/Management contended that the learned Authority erred in concluding an employee-employer relationship existed between the parties. He submits that the claimants had also raised an industrial dispute with regard to the termination of their services, where vide the impugned award, the learned Labour Court dismissed the claim application vide order dated 15.09.2018 by observing that the claimants had failed to prove the employee-employer relationship. He further submits that the claimants have failed to produce any evidence in this regard. It is next contended that the learned Authority was only empowered to consider the issue of earned wages and not to go into the issue of employee-employer relationship.

8. The above contentions are repelled by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants as well as by Mr Tushar Sannu, appearing for the Authority.

9. Mr L R Khatana, learned amicus curiae, has also assisted the Court by submitting that there is no conflict between the DSE Act and the Industrial Dispute