* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on : 18.03.2026 Pronounced on : 30.03.2026 Uploaded on : 30.03.2026 + W.P.(C) 7184/2018 PARAMJEET SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Karan Luthra and Mr. Shiven Asthana, Advocates.

versus BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sandeep Prabhakar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vikas Mehta, Advocate, for Respondent No. 1.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

JUDGMENT

1. The workman has preferred the present writ petition seeking to impugn the award dated 28.03.2018 passed by the Labour Court, whereby his claim application came to be dismissed.

2. In the claim application, the workman claimed that he had worked with the “Management” on the post of Driver with effect from 14.12.2003 to 31.05.2012. The workman, along with the claim application, filed copies of two identity cards issued by respondent no. 2 herein (Management 2) and also a copy of the vehicular log dated 18.12.2003. His last drawn wages were Rs.7,800/- per month. When the workman demanded legal facilities like appointment letter, weekly off holiday, casual leave, his attendance to be marked in the attendance register, pay slip, leave book, attendance card, ESIC, overtime, bonus, minimum wages as per Government policy, and other facilities, his services were terminated on 01.06.2012. Though he impleaded BSES Rajdhani Power Limited as well as M/s Team Lease Pvt. Ltd. as Management 1 and 2 respectively, he used the common word “Management” in his entire claim application. Both Managements 1 and 2 appeared and contested the claim.

3. Management 1, i.e. BSES Rajdhani Power Limited, denied the employer-employee relationship, stating that the workman remained on the payroll of Management 2. It was stated that the question of payment of salary along with other benefits such as leave, PF, etc. by Management-1 did not arise as the workman was never its employee.

4. Management 2, i.e. M/s Teamlease Services Pvt. Ltd., in its written statement, claimed that they did not terminate the services of the workman and that it was the workman who himself left the job with effect from 19.05.2012 due to his deployment with other clients. It was further claimed that the workman had not completed 240 days of working during the year preceding the alleged termination. It was also stated that Management 2 had a valid license under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, and the workman was deployed with Management 1 as per the terms and conditions of the agreement between them. Management 2 also claimed to have regularly paid wages to the workman, and PF as well as ESI contributions were stated to have been duly deducted therefrom and deposited with the concerned departments.

5. Before this Court, while assailing the impugned award, learned counsel for the workman contended that the Labour Court erred in observing that the workman failed to discharge his burden of having completed 240 days of service, as the workman had placed on record copies of the identity cards issued to him which only showed that they were valid for 12 months. It was next contended that the workman was under the direction and supervision of Management 1 and, thus, the Labour Court ought to have held that the employer-employee relationship stood proved.

6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for Management 1 contended that the claim application was rightly rejected as although the workman arrayed both the Managements as parties, the claim application shows that while the workman is claiming to be an employee of Management 1, he has not stated that the agreement between Management 1 and 2 was sham, illegal and camouflage to deprive the workman of legal benefits of his employment.

7. Management 2 remained unrepresented despite service.

8. On the dispute being raised, the learned Labour Commissioner forwarded the following reference:

“Whether the services of Sh. Paramjeet Singh S/o Sh. Narender Singh have been terminated illegally and/or unjustif