KUNAL JAIN vs DY. LABOUR COMMISSIONER & ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 02.07.2025 + W.P.(C) 8803/2025 and CM APPL. 37521/2025 KUNAL JAIN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Gagan Narang, Ms. Urvi Syal and Mr. Rudraksh Gupta, Advocates. versus DY. LABOUR COMMISSIONER & ANR .....Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. By way of present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the order dated 10.02.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority under the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954/Deputy Labour Commissioner (South East), Labour Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi (hereinafter, ‘impugned order’) whereby the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 1,26,153/- towards due earned wages and Rs. 31,583/- as compensation to respondent No. 2. 2. The facts of the present case, in a nutshell, are that in the claim petition, the respondent No.2 claimed himself to be employed by the petitioner as a Senior Foreman at a monthly salary of Rs. 40,000/- commencing from 01.08.2019. It was further claimed that his salary was wrongfully withheld from 01.08.2019 to 04.11.2019. In the claim petition, the respondent no.2 claimed Rs. 1,26,153/- towards arrears of salary alongwith prayer for compensation and interest. The respondent also issued a demand notice dated 08.10.2020 to the petitioner. Signature Not Verified Signed By:GAUTAM W.P.(C) 8803/2025 Page 1 of 3 ASWAL Signing Date:04.07.2025 23:59:18 3. The claim petition having been allowed by the impugned order, the petitioner challenges the same by contending that respondent No.2 failed to prove any employer-employee relationship between himself and the petitioner. It is the petitioner’s case that respondent No. 2 was appointed as an independen