Disposed

Shiv Murti Yadav v. the Joint Labour Commissioner and Anr.

Delhi HC16 Mar 2026W.P.(C)/11249/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court allowed an application by a petitioner to place additional documents showing prior wage payment and an employer-employee relationship on record. The Court held that establishing this relationship is crucial as the Labour Court had previously dismissed a claim for lack thereof. The main petition was remanded to the Labour Court for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Allowed application for placing additional documents; Remanded main petition to Labour Court for fresh consideration.

Shiv Murti Yadav Vs the Joint Labour Commissioner and… — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~4

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 11249/2018

¶4

SHIV MURTI YADAV .....Petitioner

¶5

Through:Mr.S.N. Parashar and Mr.Ritik Singh, Advocates

¶6

versus

¶7

THE JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND ANR.

¶8

.....Respondents Through:Mr.MuditTalesara, Advocate for respondent No.2

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 16.03.2026

¶12

CM APPL. 43685/2018 (additional documents)

¶13

By way of the present application, the applicant/petitioner seeks to place on record additional documents (Annexure P-2 and Annexure P-3).

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide the impugned order dated 02.06.2018, the claim application came to be dismissed on the stand taken by the management that there was no employer-employee relationship. He submits that prior to the filing of the claim application, the petitioner had approached the concerned authority under the Delhi Shops & Establishments Act, 1954 for payment of earned wages. In the said proceedings, the respondents were directed to pay earned wages for a sum of Rs. 21,066/- for the

¶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 20/03/2026 at 13:41:26

¶17

period from 28.02.2013 to 08.05.2013. The said amount was also deposited by the respondents in the petitioner’s account, for which he has filed a copy of the documents.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said order has attained finality and the amount was deposited in the petitioner’s account, for which the petitioner also seeks to place on record his account details of Bank of Baroda.

¶19

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner was aware of the said documents and, despite being aware and in possession of the same, did not file the said documents before the Labour Court.

¶20

Considering that, before the Labour Court, the respondents had denied the employer-employee relationship, this Court is of the considered opinion that the application deserves to be allowed, as it goes to the root of the claim application.

¶21

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

¶22

W.P.(C) 11249/2018

¶23

As the issue would have a bearing on the merits of the claim itself, it is deemed appropriate to remand the matter back for fresh consideration. The appellant shall be at liberty to place his documents on record, and the respondent shall also be at liberty to cross-examine the claimant, if so desired.

¶24

In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of, and the matter be listed before the concerned Labour Court on 30.03.2026.

¶25

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J

¶26

MARCH 16, 2026/ na

¶27

This is a digitally signed order.

¶28

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 20/03/2026 at 13:41:26

Shiv Murti Yadav v. the Joint Labour Commissioner and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Murti Yadav v. the Joint Labour Commissioner and Anr.

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

Antique Marbonite Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board and Ors.

Vinay Sehrawat & Anr. Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Ayush Thakur Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation Vs Nagender Kumar

Renaatus Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs Airports Authority of India

Delhi Police & Anr. Vs Smt Bimla Devi

Arp Woven Sack Pvt. Ltd. through Its Authorized Representative Vs Union of India & Anr.

Ravender Datta @Ravinder Datta Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation Vs Nagender Kumar

Vipul Gupta Alias Vipul Garg & Anr. Vs Honey Goel

Smt. Asha Devi & Ors. Vs Union of India

Yogesh Sharma & Anr. Vs Geeta @ Jitu @ Gitu

Roopwati & Ors. Vs Okara Express & Anr.