Dismissed

M/S Sky Lark Securities Pvt. Ltd. v. Ram Khilawan @ Ram Kailawan

Delhi HC25 Aug 2026W.P.(C)/12410/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi dismissed the petition challenging a Labour Court award that granted lump-sum compensation to a workman. The Court held the lower award was well-reasoned and sound, allowing no interference.

What the court decided

AI extract

M/S Sky Lark Securities Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ram Khilawan @ Ram… — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~120

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 25^th August, 2026

¶4

CNR No. DLHC010400842026

¶5

- W.P.(C) 12410/2026, CM APPL. 57573/2026 & CM APPL. 57574/2026

¶6

M/S SKY LARK SECURITIES PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner

¶7

Through: Mr. Ajay Dabas, Ms. Priyanka Dagar and Mr. Rishikesh Singh, Advs. Mob: 9718248119 Email: [email protected]

¶8

versus

¶9

RAM KHILAWAN @ RAM KAILAWAN .....Respondent Through: None.

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

¶12

MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (ORAL):

¶13

The present petition has been filed challenging the Award dated 04^th April, 2026 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Presiding Officer, Labour Court – IV, Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi in LIR No. 854/2021 . By way of the impugned Award, the learned Labour Court after considering the fact that the respondent workman had already rejoined the service during the pendency of the dispute, awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs. 80,000/- in lieu of the back wages from the period of illegal termination of the workman on 31^st May, 2017, till his re-joining on

¶14

Signature Not Verified

¶15

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 7.08.2026 19:46:55

¶16

Page 1 of 5

¶17

31^st August, 2020.

¶18

As per the facts on record, the respondent workman was working in the petitioner company as a security guard since 01^st November, 2011. Since the petitioner was not being given salary as per the notified minimum wages, he demanded the same. Thus, the petitioner company terminated his services on 31^st May, 2017.

¶19

Though the petitioner company had averred before the learned Labour Court that the respondent workman had abandoned the services, the petitioner was unable to prove the same. It was also averred that the employment of the respondent was only contractual in nature and that he voluntarily left his job upon conclusion of the work at the site contract. The respondent workman did not wish to join any other site of management and thus, voluntarily left the job, without any prior notice or information.

¶20

However, during the course of evidence, the management witness, CW1, Rameshwar Singh, categorically admitted that the respondent workman had joined the management on 01^st November, 2011 as security guard at monthly wages of Rs. 5,500/-. The learned Labour Court took note of the fact that the management had failed to mention the last working day of the respondent workman on the alleged abandonment of work either in the reply or in the evidence affidavit. Thus, noting that even during the cross examination, the management witness could not state the specific date when the respondent workman had abandoned his job, the learned Labour Court further took note of the fact that the management had not issued any Show Cause Notice or memo or notice of absenteeism to the workman. Thus, it was held that in the absence of any cogent credible evidence on record, it cannot be presumed that the workman had left the services of the

¶21

Signature Not Verified

¶22

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 7.08.2026 19:46:55

¶23

Page 2 of 5

¶24

management on his own.

¶25

The learned Labour Court took note of the authorities in this regard to hold that it has been laid down in a catena of judgments that management has to bring on record sufficient material to show that the workman had abandoned his service. Furthermore, on failure to report for duty, the management has to call upon the employee and if he refuses to report, then an enquiry is required to be ordered against him and action is to be taken in that regard. It was held that in the absence of anything placed on record by the management, no presumption against the workman can be drawn.

¶26

The learned Labour Court also rejected the plea of the management that the workman was transferred/deputed to another site vide its movement order dated 01^st September, 2020. Such plea was considered to be an afterthought, as no such offer was made by management in response to demand notice of workman or during the conciliation proceedings. 7. The learned Labour Court also did not find any merit in the plea of the management that it had offered the workman to re-join duty in managementcompany, by way of movement order dated 01^st September, 2020 as well as letter dated 09^th January, 2021. The learned Labour Court took note of the fact that no such offer was given on behalf of the management to the workman before the conciliation officer during the conciliation proceedings. Furthermore, no such offer was given by the management to the workman offering him to join duty at same site or even at different site of management during the proceedings before the authority under the Minimum Wages Act. Thus, this plea of the management was considered to be merely an afterthought, by taking into consideration the fact that the management had come up with the said offer after inordinate and unexplained delay of almost

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 7.08.2026 19:46:55

¶29

Page 3 of 5

¶30

three years since the date of termination of workman.

¶31

The learned Labour Court also noted that no such offer of re-joining the service was given by the management to the workman before the Labour Court during recording of testimony of the workman. Instead, suggestion was given on behalf of the management to the workman during his cross examination that management had deputed him to another site, which suggestion was denied by the workman. 9. Accordingly, considering the documents and deposition on record, the learned Labour Court came to a categorical finding that the management had failed to prove its defence plea that workman had himself stopped reporting for duty for management. No credible evidence had been put forth by the management to controvert the claim of the workman that his services were illegally terminated by the management on 31^st May, 2017. 10. Therefore, it was held that the respondent workman had succeeded in establishing that he was illegally terminated by the management on 31^st May, 2017. After holding as aforesaid, it was noted that the respondent workman had already re-joined the services of the management as security guard on 1^st October, 2025. Thus, the only issue to be considered by the learned Labour Court was with regard to the plea of the respondent workman for grant of full back wages.

¶32

The learned Labour Court in this regard, on the basis of the evidence on record, came to a considered finding that there was no offer of reemployment from management to the workman during the period from 01^st June, 2017 to 31^st August, 2020. Thus, the workman was held entitled to back wages for the period from the date of his termination till 31^st August, 2020. The learned Labour Court also took note of the fact that the workman

¶33

Signature Not Verified

¶34

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 7.08.2026 19:46:55

¶35

Page 4 of 5

¶36

had admitted during his cross examination that he was doing petty work after his termination to bear his household expenses.

¶37

On account of the aforesaid, the learned Labour Court held that the respondent herein was not entitled to full back wages and considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, granted lump sum compensation of Rs. 80,000/- in lieu of back wages, along with an interest @8% per annum till its payment, in case, the said amount was not paid within thirty days of publication of the Award.

¶38

The impugned Award passed by the learned Labour Court is a wellreasoned Award, passed on the basis of facts and evidence on record. There is no reason for this Court to interfere with the Award passed by the learned Labour Court, which has been passed on sound and cogent reasoning.

¶39

Accordingly, no merit is found in the present petition.

¶40

The same is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶41

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶42

AUGUST 25, 2026/ ak

¶43

Signature Not Verified

¶44

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 7.08.2026 19:46:55

¶45

Page 5 of 5

M/S Sky Lark Securities Pvt. Ltd. v. Ram Khilawan @ Ram Kailawan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M/S Sky Lark Securities Pvt. Ltd. v. Ram Khilawan @ Ram Kailawan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hukam Chand & Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

Harsh Kumar Agarwal Vs Union of India & Anr.

M/S Micro Focus Software Solutions India Private Limited Vs Special Commissioner & Ors.

Gurgaon Gramin Bank Workers Organization through Chief Coordinator/ Authorised Representative Mukes Vs Union of India through Secretary Department of Financial Service Ministry of Finance, Governmen

Sub Maj Lalit Sharma Vs Union of India through Secretary & Ors.

The Union of India & Ors. Vs Ex Nk Rathod Raja Bhai Bavanji Bhai

Union of India & Ors. Vs Sh. Jamuna Dass

Sunil Jindal Vs Union of India through Secretary Minstry of Road, Transport and Highways & Anr.