Delhi High Court - Orders
Management Of Ashok Hotel (Itdc) vs Their Workmen & Anr on 18 July, 2025
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~2 (SDB)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 199/2013
MANAGEMENT OF ASHOK HOTEL (ITDC) .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Ravi Sikri Sr. Adv. with Ms.
Sumitra Choudhary, Mr M.K. Raghav
Raman, Ms Nitya Sharma, Mr Nishant
Goyal & Mr Deepank Yadav, Advs.
(M: 8800556098)
versus
THEIR WORKMEN & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Barun Kumar Sinha, Mr. Pratibha
Sinha, Mr. Sneh Vardhan and Mr.
Siddhant Thakur, Advs.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
ORDER
% 18.07.2025
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CM APPL. 73255/2024 in LPA 199/2013
2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of. REVIEW PET. 477/2024 in LPA 199/2013
3. This is a review petition seeking review of the judgment dated 12 th November, 2024 (hereinafter "the impugned judgement").
4. Ld. Counsel for the Review Petitioner has primarily raised two grounds. Firstly, that in paragraphs 17 & 18, the impugned judgment holds that no foundation was laid by the Workmen before the Industrial Tribunal to show that they were on permanent jobs with the Ashok Hotel. It is submitted that this observation is contrary to the contents of the claim petition itself.
5. Secondly, that the ld. Single Judge vide judgement dated 19th February, 2013 has clearly noted in paragraphs 14 & 15 that the salary of the Workmen 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 22/07/2025 at 21:43:58 was being paid by the Petitioner and not by the Contractor. It was the Contractor, who was changed from time to time. Thus, it is submitted that the same showed that the Workmen were permanent employees of the Ashok Hotel.
6. This Court has considered the submission made by ld. Counsel for the Review Petitioners. A perusal of the judgement would show that the same is a detailed judgment where the Court has not agreed with the stand of the Workmen that they were direct employees of the Petitioner. The reasoning for the same has also been given in paragraphs 37 & 38. The Court has clearly held that the allegation of the workmen to the effect that the Contractor had been interposed by the principal employer, to avoid statutory liability has not been established from the record.
7. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that there is no error which is apparent on the face of the record or any other tenable grounds for entertaining the present review. The review petition is, accordingly, rejected.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
JULY 18, 2025/dk/msh 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 22/07/2025 at 21:43:58