Allowed

Surender Pal v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi through Office of Labor Commissioner & Ors.

Delhi HC14 Jan 2026W.P.(C)/11182/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition against a Labour Authority order dismissing a wage claim, where new documentary evidence (storeroom register entries post-termination date) had not been considered. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter for fresh examination and evidence before the Authority.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; petitioner allowed to lead evidence before the Authority; respondent may cross-examine; matter listed 05.02.2026

Surender Pal Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi through… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~43

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 11182/2023

¶4

SURENDER PAL .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Ms. Aayushi Jain, Advocate

¶6

versus

¶7

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH OFFICE OF LABOR COMMISSIONER & ORS. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ankit Dwivedi, Advocate

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

¶10

O R D E R % 14.01.2026

¶11

By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks to assail the order dated 24.03.2023, passed by the Labour Authority established under the Delhi Shops and Establishment Act, 1954.

¶12

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that although the respondent has claimed that the appellant’s services were terminated on 01.09.2019, the appellant continued to attend to his duties until the commencement of the Covid-lockdown.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that during the pendency of the claim application, the appellant was not in possession of certain documents, which were subsequently filed along with the review application, however, the same were not considered by the concerned authorities. She further submits that the impugned order proceeds on the premise that the wages claimed need to be ‘earned wages’ and, in view of

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/01/2026 at 13:17:41

¶16

the complete denial by the respondent that the appellant had not performed any work after 01.09.2019, the claim application came to be dismissed. She, therefore, prays that one more opportunity be granted to the appellant to place the said documents on record before the concerned Authority.

¶17

Learned counsel for the respondent, however, opposes the said request by contending that it was the appellant’s own case that he had gone for duty but does not state that he was assigned any work..

¶18

According to the appellant’s case, the documents filed along with the review application contain entries in the storeroom register beyond 01.09.2019, which also bear the appellant’s signatures. Considering the contention that the aforesaid documents, stated to have been subsequently filed along with the review application, may have a bearing on the matter, and without expressing any opinion thereon, this Court deems it appropriate that the issue be first examined by the concerned Authority.

¶19

In view thereof, the impugned order is set aside. The appellant shall, accordingly, be afforded an opportunity to lead evidence on the aforesaid aspects, and, if so advised, the respondent shall also be entitled to crossexamine the appellant in that regard. 7. Let the matter be listed before the concerned Authority on 05.02.2026, in the first instance.

¶20

DASTI

¶21

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J

¶22

JANUARY 14, 2026 sn

¶23

This is a digitally signed order.

¶24

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/01/2026 at 13:17:41

Surender Pal v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi through Office of Labor Commissioner & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surender Pal v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi through Office of Labor Commissioner & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Anand Imaging and Neurological Research Centre Vs Union of India & Ors.

Vikas Saksena Vs Union of India & Ors.

Union of India & Ors. Vs Wg Cdr Mahavir Singh Retd

Chhotu Kumar Vs Indian Coast Guard & Ors.

Ramdhar Singh Vs UOI and Ors.

Goli Finance Limited Vs Union of India & Anr.

Anil Goel Vs Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India

Sanjeev Kumar Vs Hardayal Municipal Heritage Public Library & Ors.

Pramod Kumar Gupta Vs Demco Industries India and Anr.

LIC Housing Finance Ltd. Vs Uma Dutt Sharma & Ors.

Gopal Singh Vs Mahesh Lochi & Anr. (the New India Assurance Company Ltd)

M/S Amazon Distributors (P) Ltd. Vs Ajay Tiwari

Nisha Devi & Ors. Vs Union of India

M/S Sanjay Printers and Publishers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sh. Suresh Kumar