Allowed¶46

Lancer Convent Senior Secondary School v. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Delhi HC12 Feb 2026W.P.(C)/15304/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Abuse of process; suppression/non-disclosure of material facts in third claim application before Labour Court; non-disclosure of earlier second claim application and settlement award dated 11.04.2017; Sixth Pay Commission benefit claims; enhancement of lumpsum compensation from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.2,50,000/-; quashing of industrial dispute proceedings LCA 39-41/2019; Labour Court-IX Rouse Avenue; Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010) 2 SCC 114; writ petition Articles 226/227 Delhi High Court; Lancer Convent Senior Secondary School.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the proceedings pending before the learned Labour Court-IX (LCA No.39/2019, 40/2019 and 41/2019); petitions, along with pending applications, disposed of accordingly. ¶46

Lancer Convent Senior Secondary School Vs Govt of NCT… — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the proceedings pending before the learned Labour Court-IX (LCA No.39/2019, 40/2019 and 41/2019); petitions, along with pending applications, disposed of accordingly.

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether the third claim application filed before the Labour Court without disclosing the earlier second claim application and the settlement award dated 11.04.2017 constitutes serious misconduct and abuse of the process of law, warranting quashing of the pending proceedings.

¶41

Court's answer

Non-disclosure in the third claim application of the second claim application and of the settlement award dated 11.04.2017 amounted to withholding of vital facts/documents from the Court, which is serious misconduct on the part of the respondents-workmen and clearly an abuse of the process of law.

¶41

Ratio / Principle

In view of the abuse of process, the writ petitions are allowed and the proceedings pending before the learned Labour Court are quashed; the petitions, along with pending applications, stand disposed of accordingly.

¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Lancer Convent Senior Secondary School filed three writ petitions under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 seeking quashing of proceedings before Labour Court-IX, Rouse Avenue Courts (LCA Nos. 39/2019, 40/2019 and 41/2019 — Naresh Kumar, Mehtab Singh Sheikh and Suresh Kumar v. the school). An award dated 13.01.2014 had granted the workmen Rs.50,000/- lumpsum in lieu of reinstatement; this Court's common order dated 18.12.2014 in W.P.(C) No. 1254/2014 enhanced it to Rs.2,50,000/-, and the SLPs were dismissed. A second claim seeking Sixth Pay Commission benefit ended in an amicable settlement recorded on 11.04.2017. The third claim application dated 24.01.2019 sought the same relief without disclosing the second claim application or the settlement award. Held: withholding such vital facts from the Court is serious misconduct and a clear abuse of the process of law (following Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 2 SCC 114). Petitions allowed; Labour Court proceedings quashed.

¶1

$~40 to 42

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 15300/2022, CM APPL. 47479/2022 LANCER CONVENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. S.N. Gupta, Advocate.

¶4

versus

¶5

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ramjeet Pandey, Advocate for respondent no.2.

¶6

- W.P.(C) 15304/2022 LANCER CONVENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. S.N. Gupta, Advocate.

¶7

versus

¶8

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ramjeet Pandey, Advocate for respondent no.2.

¶9

- W.P.(C) 15315/2022 LANCER CONVENT SENIOR

¶10

SECONDARY SCHOOL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. S.N. Gupta, Advocate.

¶11

versus

¶12

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR ....Respondents Through: Mr. Ramjeet Pandey, Advocate for respondent no.2.

¶13

CORAM:

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI O R D E R % 12.02.2026

¶15

By way of the present petitions filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, the petitioner seeks quashing of the proceedings pending before the learned Labour Court-IX, Rouse Avenue Courts, New

¶16

This is a digitally signed order.

¶17

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 17/02/2026 at 12:58:38

¶18

Delhi vide LCA No.39/2019, 40/2019 and 41/2019 titled as ‘Naresh Kumar v. Lancer Convent Senior Secondary School’, ‘Mehtab Singh Sheikh v. M/S Lancer Convent Senior Secondary School’, and ‘Suresh Kumar v. Lancer Convent Senior Secondary School’, respectively.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that while Suresh , respondent no.2 in W.P. (C) 15304/2020, was appointed as driver in the petitioner-establishment in the year 1997, Naresh Kumar and Mehtab Singh Shaikh , being respondent no.2 in W.P. (C) 15300/2020 and W.P. (C) 15315/2022 respectively, were appointed in the year 2003.

¶20

Learned counsel submits that subsequently their services were terminated and on a dispute being raised, the learned Labour Court passed an award on 13.01.2014, thereby granting a lumpsum compensation of Rs.50,000/- in lieu of reinstatement of service.

¶21

The respondents however, challenged the aforesaid award vide writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 1254/2014. This Court vide common order dated 18.12.2014 disposed of the said writ petition thereby enhancing the lumpsum compensation from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.2,50,000/- i.e., by granting an additional amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The said order passed by this Court were challenged before the Supreme Court whereby the SLPs came to be dismissed.

¶22

It is stated that the respondents thereafter filed a second claim application before the Labour Court, this time seeking benefit of the Sixth Pay Commission. During the pendency of the industrial disputes, the parties reached an amicable settlement and the said disputes were disposed of after recording the statements of the AR of the workmen as well as the AR of the management on 11.04.2017. The relevant extract of the award passed on that

¶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 17/02/2026 at 12:58:38

¶25

date is as under:-

¶26

“2. On completion of pleadings, issues were framed in the present case on 08.03.2011 and now the case is at the stage of workmen evidence. However, today the Ld. ARs for the parties appeared before this tribunal and submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties. Statements of Ld. ARs for the parties to this effect have been recorded, which are being reproduced as follows:-

¶27

Statement of Sh. Markandey Shukla, Ld. AR for workmen On SA

¶28

1, on behalf of workmen, state that the workmen do not wish to pursue the present reference and want to withdraw the same due to settlement arrived at between them and the management in the same. Applications moved in this regard both on behalf of the management and the workmen are Ex. A-I and Ex. A-2 respectively. Ex. A-2 is bearing my signature at point A thereon. My statement is true and correct. It is, therefore, prayed that the present reference be disposed of as settled and award be passed accordingly.

¶29

RO&AC Sd/(ARW)

¶30

Sd/(Chandra Gupta) POIT/KKD Delhi 11.04.2017

¶31

Statement of R.K. Anand, Ld. AR for management. On SA

¶32

I have heard the above statement of Ld. AR for workmen. Same is true and correct. Ex. A-I is bearing my signature at point A thereon. My statement is true and correct. It is, therefore, prayed that the present reference be disposed of as settled and award be passed accordingly.

¶33

RO&AC Sd/(ARM)

¶34

Sd/- (ARM) Sd/-

¶35

This is a digitally signed order.

¶36

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 17/02/2026 at 12:58:38

¶37

(Chandra Gupta) POIT/KKD Delhi/1I.04.2017

¶38

3. In view of the above statements on behalf of the parties regarding settlement, present reference stands disposed of as settled and settlement-award is passed accordingly.”

¶39

Thereafter, a third claim application came to be filed after a gap of two years on 24.01.2019 again seeking benefit of Sixth Pay Commission. However, this time, the factum of filing of the second claim application for the same relief was not disclosed.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that non-disclosure of filing of the second claim application as well as the award passed on 11.04.2017 is a serious misconduct on the part of the respondents-workmen. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-workmen after going through the record also concedes to the fact that the third claim application has not disclosed the factum of filing of second claim application as well as passing of the settlement award on the same. He, however, submits that no consideration was paid during the said settlement.

¶41

A perusal of the third claim application would show that not only the factum of filing second claim application was not disclosed, the settlement arrived between the parties and the award passed on the same were not disclosed either. There is no averment to the effect that the settlement terms were not complied with by the present petitioner. Withholding of vital documents from the Court is a serious matter. The respondents-workmen by withholding the aforesaid facts, by filing the third claim application, have committed a serious misconduct and the same is clearly an abuse of the process of law. A gainful reference in this regard can be made to the

¶42

This is a digitally signed order.

¶43

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 17/02/2026 at 12:58:38

¶44

decision in ‘Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others’¹ , the relevant extract of which are as under:-

¶45

“6. In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath the Court held that where a preliminary decree was obtained by withholding an important document from the Court, the party concerned deserves to be thrown out at any stage of the litigation.”

¶46

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present petitions are allowed and the proceedings pending before the learned Labour Court are hereby quashed.

¶47

The petitions, along with pending applications, stand disposed of accordingly.

¶48

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J

¶49

FEBRUARY 12, 2026/ rd

¶50

1 (2010) 2 SCC 114

¶51

This is a digitally signed order.

¶52

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 17/02/2026 at 12:58:38

Lancer Convent Senior Secondary School v. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lancer Convent Senior Secondary School v. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shannu Baghel Vs Bar Council of India

Maya Gupta & Ors. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Rashpal Singh Todd Vs the Bureau of Immigration & Ors.

Sunil Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Union of India & Ors. Vs Ajay Kumar

M/S Sopan Restaurant Vs Union of India & Ors.

Abdur Rahman Vs Sports Management Board & Ors.

Sh Krishan Vs Minicipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Ahlcon International School Vs Ashwani Kumar

Sujit Kumar & Ors. Vs Union of India

Jai Singh & Ors. Vs Sh Jai Narain & Ors.

Lancer Convent Senior Secondary School Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Lancer Convent Senior Secondary School Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sh Rinku & Anr.