RAJ KUMAR RASTOGI vs DELHI PRESS LTD.

Judgment text excerpt

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 06th FEBRUARY, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF: + LPA 353/2022 RAJ KUMAR RASTOGI .....Appellant Through: Mr. Jawahar Raja, Mr. Ishaan Goel, Ms. Meghna De and Mr. Nitai Hindua, Advs. versus DELHI PRESS LTD. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Meghna Mital, Ms. Vanita, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL KUMAR YADAV JUDGMENT SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD J. 1. The present Appeal has been filed by the Appellant challenging the Judgment and Order dated 18.05.2015, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) NO. 4815/2001 [“Impugned Judgment”]. 2. By way of the Impugned Judgment, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the Appellant, to uphold the Award dated 23.04.2001 passed by the Labor Court in I.D NO.1443/95 (Old I.D. No. 95/87. 3. The Labor Court as well as the learned Single Judge were of the opinion that the Appellant is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, [“ID Act”]. Signature Not Verified Signed By:RAHUL SINGH LPA 353/2022 Page 1 of 24 Signing Date:06.02.2026 17:39:58 4. The facts, in brief as presented by the Appellant in the present appeal, are as follows: a. The Appellant was appointed by the Respondent-Management as a „Full-time Grainer‟ vide Appointment Letter dated 01.06.1983 [“Appointment Letter”]. Though he was appointed as a „Full time Grainer‟, the Appointment Letter mentions that he was selected as a „trainee‟. b. The Appointment Letter stipulates that the training period may last up to one year, however, the training period was extended from 31.05.1984 to 31.05.1985, from 31.05.1985 to 31.05.1986 and lastly, from 31.05.1986 to 31.05.1987. It is, therefore, the case of the Appellant that he worked for more than thre