$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 20.02.2026 Date of decision: 28.03.2026 Uploaded on: 28.03.2026 + W.P.(C) 7000/2015 RAM NATH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Avadh Bihari Kaushik, Adv.

versus M/S HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sandeep Prabhakar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Vikas Mehta, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN

JUDGMENT

SHAIL JAIN, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Workman, Shri Ram Nath, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking setting aside of the order dated 29.11.2014 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”) passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-IX, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in LCA No. 01/2014, whereby the claim of the Petitioner under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) for computation and recovery of alleged dues was dismissed as not maintainable on the ground that the entitlement itself was disputed and required adjudication.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. The Petitioner/Workman, Shri Ram Nath, claims to have been initially appointed as an Accounts Assistant with M/s Kwality Ice Cream Company in or about the year 1987. The Respondent/Management, however, asserts that the Petitioner was appointed as a Clerk on 16.03.1988 on probation and his services were subsequently confirmed on 01.10.1998. It is not in dispute pursuant to a Strategic Alliance Agreement dated 30.12.1994 between KIC Food Products Ltd. and Brooke Bond Lipton India Ltd. (BBLIL), the business operations relating to ice cream including the sales, distribution and marketing functions, were transferred and the services of the employees engaged therein, including the Petitioner, stood transferred to BBLIL for all purposes. Though there is a divergence in the exact date and designation of appointment, the factum of employment and continuity of service is not in dispute.

3. Thereafter, BBLIL came to be merged with Hindustan Lever Limited (now Hindustan Unilever Limited) in or about 1995–1996, and the Petitioner continued in service under the Respondent. It is also not in dispute that upon such takeover, the services of the Petitioner stood transferred to Hindustan Lever Limited (now Hindustan Unilever Limited) without any break in service. During the course of his employment, the Petitioner was transferred from time to time, including from Marshal House to Punjabi Bagh in or about September 2000 and subsequently to Alipur in the year 2008, while his service continued without break and with continuity of service.

4. It is an admitted position that a long-term Settlement dated 14.04.2001 was entered into between the Respondent and the permanent workmen of Kwality Ice Cream Company represented through the Hotel Workers Union, wherein the name of the Petitioner finds mention. It is further borne out from the record that an earlier wage revision/ settlement was also entered into in or about the year 1997, which was implemented in respect of the Petitioner.

Upon the expiry of the said settlement, a subsequent long-term Settlement dated 26.02.2004 was executed between the same parties, governing the service conditions of the said category of workmen. According to the Respondent, the said settlement dated 26.02.2004 continues to remain operative and binding, there being no material on record to show that it was terminated in accordance with law.

5. Subsequently, the Respondent entered into further wage settlements dated 05.07.2006 and 23.03.2011 with employees represented by the All India Brooke Bond Employees Federation. The case of the Petitioner is that he is entitled to the benefits arising out of the said subsequent settlements. The Respondent, however, disputes the aforesaid claim and asserts that the Petitioner continued to be governed exclusively by the settlements dated 14.04.2001 and 26.02.2004 entered into with workmen represented by the Hotel Workers Union. It is the stand of the Re