Allowed¶22

Santosh Rawat v. Sagar Ratna Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Delhi HC11 Mar 2026W.P.(C)/11197/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.(C) 11197/2022, Santosh Rawat v. Sagar Ratna Restaurant Pvt Ltd & Anr., decided 11.03.2026 by Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. (Delhi HC): writ petition against Labour Court No. IX, Dwarka award dated 31.01.2019, passed when evidence was closed on a date the petitioner missed due to wrong noting of the date; earlier restoration application dismissed on 03.02.2020. Petition allowed; award set aside; matter remanded to Labour Court for cross-examination, listed on 23.03.2026.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award dated 31.01.2019 set aside; matter remanded to the learned Labour Court; petitioner to appear on the next date of hearing when the management would be at liberty to cross-examine; matter to be listed at the first instance before the Labour Court on 23.03.2026. ¶22

Santosh Rawat Vs Sagar Ratna Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned award dated 31.01.2019 passed by the learned Labour Court No. IX, Dwarka Courts, Delhi — passed on a date the petitioner missed owing to a wrong noting of the date, when his right to lead evidence was closed — ought to be set aside.

¶14

Court's answer

From a perusal of the proceedings, the petitioner failed to appear only on one date, i.e., 31.01.2019, being the date on which the petitioner's evidence was closed and the impugned award was passed.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The reason given by the petitioner for his non-appearance is sufficient for the Court to set aside the impugned award; accordingly the petition is allowed, the impugned award is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the Labour Court, with the petitioner to appear on the next date of hearing when the management would be at liberty to cross-examine him.

¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.) allowed a writ petition challenging the award dated 31.01.2019 of the learned Labour Court No. IX, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, by which the petitioner's evidence was closed and the award passed on a date he did not appear, statedly because he had noted a wrong date. The record showed the claim originated in 2014 before the Conciliation Officer; the petitioner was examined-in-chief on 09.01.2018; cross-examination was deferred as the management's counsel was absent; the matter went to Lok Adalat on 15.05.2018; and the petitioner, appearing on 15.03.2019 for cross-examination, first learnt of the award. His application dated 16.04.2019 to set aside the award had been dismissed on 03.02.2020. Holding that the petitioner had failed to appear only on the single date of 31.01.2019 and that the explanation was sufficient, the Court set aside the impugned award, remanded the matter to the Labour Court with liberty to the management to cross-examine the petitioner on the next date, and directed listing on 23.03.2026.

¶1

$~9

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 11197/2022

¶4

SANTOSH RAWAT .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Ms. Meghna De and Mr. Ishaan Goel, Advocates

¶6

versus

¶7

SAGAR RATNA RESTAURANT PVT LTD & ANR.

¶8

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Siddharth Parashar, Advocate

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

% 11.03.2026

¶13

The present petition has been filed seeking setting aside of the order dated 31.01.2019 passed by the learned Labour Court No. IX, Dwarka Courts, Delhi vide which the impugned award came to be passed.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned award, submits that the same was passed without evidence being led in the case. Even though the petitioner had furnished evidence by way of an affidavit, however, on account of a wrong noting of the date, the petitioner could not appear for cross-examination on 31.01.2019, when the right to lead evidence was closed and the award was passed on the very same date. She submits that, thereafter, the petitioner also preferred an application on 16.04.2019 for seeking setting aside of the impugned award, however, the said application also came to be dismissed on 03.02.2020.

¶15

This is a digitally signed order.

¶16

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 16/03/2026 at 16:28:38

¶17

Insofar as the petitioner’s non-appearance is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has taken the Court through the proceeding sheets which reflect that the petitioner’s examination-in-chief was recorded on 09.01.2018, whereafter the matter was adjourned on the request of learned counsel for the management. She submits that the petitioner’s nonappearance was only on account of wrong noting of the date and that immediate steps were taken thereafter to set aside the impugned award.

¶18

Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner has been remiss and despite the grant of three opportunities, could not present himself for cross-examination. 5. I have gone through the proceeding sheets as well as the impugned award. A perusal of the proceedings would show that the claim was initially filed in the year 2014 before the Conciliation Officer, whereafter the disputes were referred to the learned Labour Court. On completion of pleadings, the petitioner was examined-in-chief on 09.01.2018. On the said date, cross-examination was deferred as learned counsel for the management was not present. On 15.05.2018, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat for exploring the possibility of an amicable settlement. On 05.09.2018, both the petitioner as well as the management remained unrepresented, however, on 05.12.2018, while the petitioner was present, the management was unrepresented and the matter was fixed for 31.01.2019. The petitioner failed to appear on the said date statedly for the reason that he had noted a wrong date, and when the petitioner appeared on 15.03.2019 for his crossexamination, he became aware of the passing of the impugned award.

¶19

From above, it is clear that the petitioner failed to appear only on one date i.e., on 31.01.2019, the date on which the petitioner’s evidence was

¶20

This is a digitally signed order.

¶21

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 16/03/2026 at 16:28:38

¶22

closed and the impugned award was passed. The reason given by the petitioner is sufficient enough for this Court to set aside the impugned award. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the impugned award is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Labour Court. The petitioner would appear on the next date of hearing when the management would be at liberty to cross-examine. Let the matter be listed at the first instance before the Labour Court on 23.03.2026.

¶23

In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of.

¶24

Let a copy of this order be communicated to the concerned Labour Court.

¶25

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J

¶26

MARCH 11, 2026

¶27

¶28

This is a digitally signed order.

¶29

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 16/03/2026 at 16:28:38

Santosh Rawat v. Sagar Ratna Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Rawat v. Sagar Ratna Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms. Anita Esmaeilzadeh Vs Union of India through Ministry of Home Affairs & Ors.

Reshma Bano Qureshi Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ms Velocis Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs National Informatics Centre Services Incorporated Nicsi

Nilesh Vishnu Jagtap Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sushma Pardesi Vs DDA & Ors.

Smt.Pummy Jasneet Kaur Anand Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Manohar Filaments Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Premium Payments Solutions Private Limited Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 20(1), Delhi, & Ors.

Jatin Bhola and Ors. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Raj Kumar Sharma and Ors. Vs Shri Santosh Kumar Rai and Ors.

Sh. Mohd Rahees Vs Union of India

North Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs Surender Kumar

Jaipal Yadav Vs Union of India

Shri Basant Lal Vs M/S Net 4 India Ltd.