ADIL MURTAZA vs ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL), DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT AND ORS

Judgment text excerpt

$~12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 30.04.2026 + W.P.(C) 3476/2026 ADIL MURTAZA .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Manini Bharti, Adv. versus ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL), DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Siddhartha Shankar Ray, CGSC, Ms. Sonali Modi and Mr. Mukul Dev, Advs. for R-1 and 3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA SACHIN DATTA, J. (ORAL) 1. The present petition assails an order dated 20.02.2026, passed by the respondent no.1, whereby the petitioner’s claim under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 has been purported to be dismissed. The said order (typed copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the present petition) reads as under: “20.02.2026 Present Belaeena Biju, Adv. on behalf of applicant. The rep. of applicant submits that they are not able to trace the whereabouts of the M/s Karvy Stock Broking Ltd. Company. The Notices are also received back without services. In view of the above, the matter is dismiss, as no address was found. Order will pass accordingly. Sd/- 20/2/26 Sd/ Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 3476/2026 Page 1 of 4 By:ABHISHEK THAKUR Signing Date:05.05.2026 19:16:28 Beleena Biju.” 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the concerned authority has abdicated its adjudicatory functions in passing the above order and has sought to non-suit the petitioner merely on the ground that certain notices to the contesting respondent came back unserved. It is submitted that appropriate steps were taken by the petitioner to effect service on the contesting respondent in the proceedings before the concerned authority by seeking to effect service at the registered address of the concerned respondent. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner cannot be fasten