Dismissed¶¶20

M/S Disha Voice and Surveillance Pvt. Ltd. v. Sh. Nirvesh Kumar and Anr.

Delhi HC17 Feb 2026W.P.(C)/17444/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Delhi; W.P.(C) 17444/2025; CM APPL. 72034/2025; writ petition dismissed; Delhi Shop Establishment Act, 1954; Authority (East District); due earned wages Rs.4,62,100/-; wage period 01.03.2020 to 31.12.2021; denial of salary; bank statements; affidavit of evidence; affidavit filed by petitioner; mutually contradictory pleas; perversity or apparent error; non-interference with findings below; M/s Disha Voice and Surveillance Pvt. Ltd.; Nirvesh Kumar; Justice Sachin Datta; order dated 26.05.2025.

What did the court decide?

The conclusion drawn in the impugned order is based on an intricate appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties before the concerned authority; this Court finds no perversity or apparent error and declines to interfere. ¶¶19

M/S Disha Voice and Surveillance Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sh. Nirvesh Kumar and Anr. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether there is any basis for calculating/computing the amount of Rs.4,62,100/- which the petitioner was directed to pay as due earned wages to respondent no.1 for the period 01.03.2020 to 31.12.2021. +2 more

¶¶10

Court's answer

The bank statements relied upon by the petitioner do not reveal the nature of the alleged payments, and the stray payments allegedly reflected therein cannot detract from the findings in the impugned order.

¶¶12

Ratio / Principle

¶¶19

Key takeaways

Having pleaded before the authority that respondent no.1 never reported for duty between 01.03.2020 and 31.12.2021, the petitioner cannot in these proceedings plead that he was paid salary for that period; mutually contradictory pleas will not be allowed.ratio¶¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.(C) 17444/2025 (High Court of Delhi, Sachin Datta, J., decided 17.02.2026) — M/s Disha Voice and Surveillance Pvt. Ltd. v. Sh. Nirvesh Kumar & Anr.: Petition assailing the order dated 26.05.2025 of the Authority (East District) under the Delhi Shop Establishment Act, 1954, directing payment of Rs.4,62,100/- towards due earned wages to respondent no.1/claimant for 01.03.2020 to 31.12.2021, dismissed. The bank statements relied upon by the petitioner gave no inkling of the nature of the alleged payments, and stray payments could not detract from the findings in the impugned order, which rested on the evidence and the petitioner's own affidavit before the authority. The petitioner, whose only defence below was that respondent no.1 never reported for duty during the period, took a mutually contradictory plea in the writ proceedings that he was paid salary, and was not permitted to do so. The Court found no perversity or apparent error in the impugned order and declined to interfere; the pending application was disposed of.

¶1

$~7

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 17444/2025, CM APPL. 72034/2025

¶4

M/S DISHA VOICE AND

¶5

SURVEILLANCE PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate along with petitioner.

¶7

versus

¶8

SH. NIRVESH KUMAR AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA O R D E R % 17.02.2026

¶9

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing an order dated 26.05.2025 passed by the Authority (East District) under the Delhi Shop Establishment Act, 1954, whereby, the petitioner has been directed to pay an amount of Rs.4,62,100/- towards due earned wages to the respondent no.1/claimant for a period between 01.03.2020 and 31.12.2021.

¶10

The limited point urged by the petitioner is that there is no basis for calculating/computing the said amount.

¶11

On contrary, it is the case of the respondent no.1/claimant that without any cogent rationale, the petitioner has denied him salary for a period between 01.03.2020 and 31.12.2021.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to rely upon certain bank statements of the respondents/claimants to contend that the respondents have been paid during the said period. The bank statement/s relied upon, do not give any inkling as to the nature of the alleged payment/s. In any event, the stray payment/s allegedly reflected therein, cannot detract from the findings

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

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 23/02/2026 at 11:55:39

¶15

in the impugned order which are based on the consideration of the evidence and also the affidavit filed by the petitioner before the concerned authority. 5. Further, it is noted that in the affidavit of evidence filed on behalf of the respondent no.1/claimant before the concerned authority, it was specifically stated as under:

¶16

The only defence taken by the petitioner (as reflected in the pleading and the affidavit of evidence filed before the concerned authority), was that the respondent no.1 never reported for duty for the period between 01.03.2020 till 31.12.2021. However, in the present proceedings, a contrary

¶17

This is a digitally signed order. 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 23/02/2026 at 11:55:39

¶18

plea has been taken that the respondent was paid salary during the concerned period. The petitioner should not be allowed to take such mutually contradictory pleas.

¶19

Be that as it may, it is found that the conclusion drawn in the impugned order is based on an intricate appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties before the concerned authority. This Court does not find any perversity or apparent error, so as to interfere with the same.

¶20

In the circumstances, this Court finds no merit in the present petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application also stands disposed of.

¶21

SACHIN DATTA, J

¶22

FEBRUARY 17, 2026/ at

¶23

M/S Disha Voice and Surveillance Pvt. Ltd. v. Sh. Nirvesh Kumar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Disha Voice and Surveillance Pvt. Ltd. v. Sh. Nirvesh Kumar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhim Singh & Ors. Vs Union Public Service Commission & Ors.

India Sme Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. Vs Punjab National Bank & Ors.

Sarthak Singh through Guardian & Anr. Vs Holy Convent School & Ors.

Madhuban Vs M/S Ganesh Industries

Kec International Limited Vs Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.

Capt S L Sharma Vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr.

Oxford Public Educational Society (Regd.) Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

Narender Kumar Sharma Vs Department of Telecom & Ors.

Madhuban Vs M/S Ganesh Industries

Dayaram Gaur Vs M/S Ganesh Industries

Munzareen Ahmad Vs Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation Ltd.

Archon Powerinfra India Private Limited Vs Shrikant Madhav Vaidya & Anr.

Harender & Ors. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Dr Rajinder Kumar Trisal Vs Dr Reshmi Singh & Anr.