logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 DHC 545 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Delhi
Case No : W.P.(C). No. 573 of 2016
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
Parties : Mohd. Idu Versus M/s. Shakti Exports
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: A.K. Suri, Ankit Kansal, Manoj Manderna, Advocates. For the Respondent: Gulshan Chawla, Kanupriya Chawla, Advocates.
Date of Judgment : 12-08-2026
Head Note :-
Comparative Citation:
2026 DHC 6657,
Judgment :-

(Oral)

1. The present petition is filed challenging order dated 30.04.2014 (hereafter 'impugned order') passed in DID No. 06/09 whereby the learned Labour Court rejected the petitioner's claim and declined to grant any relief to him.

2. Briefly stated, it is the case of the petitioner that he was working with the respondent as a Cutting Master since the year 1986 and his services were illegally terminated by the respondent management on 15.11.2006. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the learned Labour Court.

3. By way of the impugned order, the learned Labour Court rejected the petitioner's claim after finding that it had no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. Apart from the same, it was also opined that the workman had abandoned his services by remaining absent from duty as evidenced by his not joining at the respondent's establishment in Gurgaon. It was further found that the petitioner had been unable to show that his services were terminated by the respondent management so as to entitle him to grant of any relief.

4. Today, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court erred in holding that it did not have territorial jurisdiction as the petitioner was in employment of the respondent management at Delhi till his illegal termination. He submits that the petitioner's services were illegally terminated without conducting any enquiry and no documentary evidence was adduced by the respondent to evidence that it had closed its business activities in Delhi.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent management submits that the impugned order suffers from no infirmity and stresses that the petitioner did not rejoin duty in Gurgaon despite multiple opportunities.

6. Having heard the counsel and perused the record, this Court is not persuaded by the arguments addressed on behalf of the petitioner.

7. At the outset, it is relevant to note that the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is only warranted when the order suffers patent illegality, perversity or an error apparent on the face of the record. It is not open to this Court to delve into re-appreciation of evidence or to assess adequacy or sufficiency of evidence.

8. Perusal of the impugned order reflects that the findings qua territorial jurisdiction are essentially premised on the petitioner's inability to show that he was terminated in Delhi. Though the grievance of the petitioner in the present case is premised on his purported illegal termination, as aptly appreciated by the learned Labour Court, there is no iota of evidence to give credence to the petitioner's assertion that his services were terminated on 15.11.2006. Rather, the petitioner has explicitly admitted in his cross-examination that he had received letters dated 10.11.2006, 24.01.2006, 15.01.2007 and 22.01.2007 from the management asking him to report for duty in Gurgaon. It is unfathomable as to why the management would insist upon the petitioner to rejoin his duties after purportedly terminating his services. In my view, admitted receipt of the aforesaid letters ex facie indicates that the petitioner was not terminated on 15.11.2006. and lends credence to the defence taken by the respondent that services of the petitioner were never terminated and he had been transferred to Gurgaon. Once the very fact of termination has not been proved, there is no cause for conduction of any enquiry.

9. Much emphasis is laid by the petitioner on the argument that no documents were adduced by the management to show that it had closed operations in Delhi. The said assertion does not find favour with this Court. Having found that there is no evidence to show that the petitioner's services were terminated in Delhi and since the petitioner had been transferred to Gurgaon, the learned Labour Court cannot be faulted for finding that it had no territorial jurisdiction over the claim, especially since the petitioner never challenged his transfer. The learned Labour Court has thus rightly found that it had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute.

10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no reason to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction and interfere with the impugned order.

11. The present petition is dismissed in the aforesaid terms.
 
  CDJLawJournal