$~J * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment pronounced on: 30.03.2026 + W.P.(C) 2918/2026 and CM APPLs.14098/2026, 14099/2026, 14100/2026 DIVISION RAILWAY MANAGER & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Gaurav Mishra, Advocate.

versus RISHI HITKARI .....Respondent Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

JUDGMENT

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing an award dated 10.04.2023 and a subsequent order dated 10.06.2025 passed in LCA No.18/2018 under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as “the ID Act”) by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as “the CGIT”).

2. The background of the matter is that a complaint came to be filed by the respondent/workman before the CGIT under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Tribunal Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as “the ID Act”) alleging that while the respondent/workman was posted at the Moradabad Division, U.P between 12.02.2007 to 19.10.2007, despite duly reporting for the duty, he was paid salary only for the month of June 2007.

3. Consequently, vide the impugned award dated 10.04.2023, the CGIT upheld the claim of the respondent/workman and accordingly directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 97,067/- along with interest for the concerned period to the respondent/workman.

4. Against the impugned award the petitioner filed an application before the CGIT seeking recall/review of the impugned award along with all consequential recovery and execution proceedings. The said application vide impugned order dated 10.06.2025 came to be dismissed.

5. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking to set aside the impugned decisions.

6. Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned award has been passed by the CGIT beyond its jurisdiction and ought to be set-aside inasmuch as: -

i. proceedings under Section 33C (2) of the ID Act being in nature of execution proceedings are maintainable only for computation or enforcement of a pre-existing right arising from a prior adjudication, settlement, award, statutory rule or service conditions and a court cannot assume an adjudicatory role thereunder. Since the petitioner has disputed the entitlement of the respondent/workman to the wages/salary for the said period itself, a dispute to foundational issues related to reporting, posting and performance of duty ought to have been adjudicated and determined under Section 10 of the ID Act.

ii. transfer order by itself does not confer an automatic right to wages, and that under settled principles of service jurisprudence, an employee is required to report at the transferred place and offer joining, and wages accrue only if work is actually performed or if the employee establishes that he was ready and willing to work but was unlawfully prevented by the employer. Such issues necessarily required adjudication and could not have been presumed or summarily decided in proceedings under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act.

iii. the law is well settled that jurisdiction cannot be conferred by default and unrebutted evidence cannot substitute for a statutory pre- condition of a pre-existing right. However, contrary to the aforesaid, the CGIT without examining the maintainability of the claim under Section 33C (2) of the ID Act, considered the same proven merely on the basis that the testimony of respondent/workman remained unrebutted.

iv. CGIT overlooked the principle of “no work no pay” and failed to appreciate that whether the respondent would fall within any exception to the said principle was in itself disputed.

v. without determining whether the respondent possessed any pre-

existing rights capable of computation under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, by awarding interest, the CGIT enlarged its jurisdiction in a manner which is impermissible while exercising functions of an executing court.

7. Learned counsel further submits that the subsequent order