$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 02.02.2026 Date of decision: 06.04.2026 Uploaded on: 06.04.2026 + W.P.(C) 3131/2013 HARISH CHANDER .....Petitioner Through: Mr. D.B. Yadav and Mr. Sauraj Yadav, Advs.

versus M/S JAI DURGA INDUSTRIES & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Krishna Dev Pandey, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN

JUDGMENT

SHAIL JAIN, J

1. The instant Writ Petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking quashing of the Award dated 17.02.2011 passed by the learned Labour Court No. IX, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Industrial Dispute bearing No. 169/08 (hereinafter ‘Impugned award’) wherein the Labour Court held that the Petitioner/workman was not entitled to any relief against the management.

BRIEF FACTS:

2. The Petitioner was employed as a Rula Mistry (LackerMistri) under the management of Respondent No. 1 since February 1998 and was drawing last wages of around Rs. 3,500/- per month.

3. During his service, the Petitioner suffered an accident allegedly in the year 2002, wherein a steel blade penetrated his right hand and spine. Instead of ensuring proper treatment at an Employee State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter, ‘ESIC’) hospital, the Respondent/ Management got him treated at a private hospital. The Petitioner was never operated on nor was the blade removed from his body.

4. The blade being in the Petitioner’s body, caused recurring and severe pain. Subsequently, upon approaching the ESIC dispensary, the Petitioner was referred to an ESI hospital, where he remained admitted from 06.03.2007 to 08.03.2007. As per the Petitioner, upon recovery, when he reported for duty on 09.03.2007, Respondent No. 1 refused to reinstate him and terminated his services without assigning any reason.

5. Aggrieved by the termination, the Petitioner issued a legal demand notice and initiated conciliation proceedings; however, the Respondent/management neither responded nor allowed the Petitioner to resume duties. Owing to the non-cooperative stance of the Respondent, the dispute was referred for adjudication.

6. The Petitioner thereafter filed a Statement of Claim, to which the Respondent filed a Written Statement, followed by a Rejoinder by the Petitioner. Both parties led evidence before the Labour Court. Upon conclusion of proceedings, the Learned Presiding Officer, passed the Impugned Award against the Petitioner. The said award reads as under:

“18. In view of the above mentioned discussion coupled with own admissions of the workman in his cross examination to the above effect and further coupled with entire material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the workman herein himself abandoned his job w.e.f. 29.01.2007 at his own will and accord. Hence, the question does not arise about the termination of his services illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management, as alleged in the statement of claim of the workman. In other words, the workman has miserably failed to prove issue no. 1 in his favor by way of any cogent evidence, either oral or documentary.

……….

20. In view of the findings of this court on issue nos. 1& 2 to the above effect, I am of the considered opinion that the workman is not entitled to any relief in this matter against the management. The award is passed to the above effect against the workman and in favour of the management.”

7. Thereafter, in the year 2009, the workman instituted a petition under Section 75 of the ESI Act before the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, seeking compensation on account of the employment-related accident along with other statutory benefits.

8. During the pendency of proceedings at the stage of petitioner’s evidence, the matter was amicably settled, wherein ESIC undertook to provide the petitioner, Harish Chand, with complete medical treatment, including examination by a Medical Board to assess his injuries and disability, in terms of the ESI Act, 1948.

9. Additionally, the manage