* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on : 16.03.2026 Pronounced on : 28.03.2026 Uploaded on : 28.03.2026 + W.P.(C) 13267/2018 RANJEET .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath and Mr. Harshit Singh, Advocates with petitioner-

workman in person.

versus NARESH INDUSTRIES .....Respondent Through: Mr. Gulshan Chawla, Ms. Kanupriya Chawla, Mr. Manish Kumar, Mr. Prashant Kumar, Mr. Aditya Singh, and Ms. Bhavya Khera, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

JUDGMENT

1. The present writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the Award dated 13.07.2018 passed by the Labour Court whereby the claim application of the workman/petitioner was dismissed.

2. The facts in a nutshell are that the workman/petitioner filed a direct industrial dispute before the Labour Court seeking reinstatement with continuity of service alongwith full back wages. In the claim application, it was claimed that the workman had joined the management/respondent on 01.01.1996 as a “Guard” and was drawing a salary of Rs.3,500/- per month.

Subsequently, he was made to work as a thread cutter, over-lock alterer, and layer man; however, no extra wages were paid, and when the same were demanded, under coercion the workman was forcibly asked to put signatures on some blank papers, vouchers, and other forms. The workman protested and demanded back the said blank documents, upon which he was beaten up and made to write an apology letter, on 15.07.2005, for the allegation that he was caught red-handed while stealing a piece of cloth. On the next day, i.e., 16.07.2005, he reported to join his duties; however, he was not allowed to join his duties, threatened, and rather asked to resign. It was further claimed that his services were illegally terminated without any notice, notice pay, or retrenchment compensation. Further, no charge-sheet was ever issued or served, and no domestic inquiry was conducted.

The management appeared and filed its written statement, in which it denied that the workman was ever employed as a “Security Guard”. It was claimed that the workman worked as a “Thread Cutter” and drew salary of Rs.2,898/- per month. The allegation of extra work was also denied. It was claimed that he was caught red-handed committing theft of cloth on 15.07.2005 and thereafter stopped coming to duty from 16.07.2005 without any intimation or sanction of leave. The absence being unauthorised, the management claimed it to be a case of abandonment. It was further claimed that though notices and a charge-sheet were duly issued, the workman never joined those proceedings.

In the said backdrop, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the workman abandoned the job deliberately w.e.f. 16.07.2005 and dismissed the claim application.

3. Before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner/workman contended that the Labour Court’s decision to reject the claim is manifestly perverse as it did not appreciate the evidence in the correct perspective. The Court failed to appreciate that none of the notices statedly sent to the workman were ever delivered. The workman claimed that none of the said communications were sent to his correct address. Further, all those communications were not sent through registered post, and even for the ones that were claimed to have been sent through UPC, there were no tracking reports or proof of delivery. Learned counsel has referred to the demand letter dated 21.07.2005 to submit that the workman had shown an intention to rejoin the duties, but he was not allowed to do so.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/management contended that the workman had filed the claim application in the year 2005, and the factum of notices being issued and factum of inquiry proceedings being held were stated at the first instance in the written statement itself. Further, the documents relating to the domestic inquiry and disciplinary proceedings were also brought on record from time to