Niyam v2 is live — start for just ₹100 — 200 credits to try

january 2026

Delhi High Court · 2026-01-28

SARITA TIWARI vs M/S DECCAN CHARTERS PVT LTD

Citation / case number
LPA-706/2019 2026:DHC:636-DB
Court
Delhi High Court
Petitioner
SARITA TIWARI
Respondent
M/S DECCAN CHARTERS PVT LTD

Judgment text excerpt

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 15.01.2026 Date of Decision: 28.01.2026 + LPA 706/2019 & CM APPL. 48416/2019 SARITA TIWARI .....Appellant Through: Mr. Rishi Raj Singh, Adv. with Appellant in person versus M/S DECCAN CHARTERS PVT LTD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Praveen Kumar and Mr. Rishi Raj, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA JUDGMENT DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, C.J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records available before us on this letters patent appeal. 2. This intra-court appeal seeks an exception to the judgment and order dated 27.08.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby W.P.(C) 3422/2014, which was preferred by the respondent challenging the award dated 04.10.2012 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), was allowed and the award of the Tribunal was set aside. Signature Not Verified Digiltally Signed LPA 706/2019 Page 1 of 21 By:SREERAM L Signing Date:28.01.2026 11:29:33 3. Learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment and order has, however, directed that the amount paid to the appellant under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) shall not be recovered. 4. At this juncture, we may note that while passing the award dated 04.10.2012, which was under challenge before the learned Single Judge in the proceedings of the writ petition, the learned Tribunal has found that termination of the services of the appellant w.e.f. 09.08.2007 was unjustified and illegal, and that she was entitled to be reinstated with full backwages and continuity in service, along with all consequential benefits. 5. It has been argued on behalf

SARITA TIWARI vs M/S DECCAN CHARTERS PVT LTD · Niyam