Delhi High Court
W.P.(C)/13725/2026 of SH OM PRAKASH AND ANR Vs EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION AND ANR on 18 September 2026
$~57 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010444772026 + W.P.(C) 13725/2026 & CM APPL. 64029/2026 SH OM PRAKASH AND ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Sanjoy Ghosh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Siddharth Sapra, Mr. Khyathi Simantini, Mr. Mohit and Mr. Rohan Mandal, Advocates Mob:
$~57
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
#
CNR No. DLHC010444772026
+
W.P.(C) 13725/2026 & CM APPL. 64029/2026
SH OM PRAKASH AND ANR.
.....Petitioners
Through:
Mr. Sanjoy Ghosh, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Siddharth Sapra, Mr. Khyathi
Simantini, Mr. Mohit and Mr. Rohan
Mandal, Advocates
Mob: 9811142757
Email: rajiv@rajivagarwal.com
versus
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION AND ANR.
.....Respondents
Through:
Advocate (appearance not given)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
% 18.09.2026
1. The present petition has been filed seeking directions to respondent nos. 1 and 2 to not change the service conditions of the petitioners during the pendency of the industrial dispute.
2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that conciliation proceedings which have been filed by the petitioners on 25th August, 2026, seeking regularisation of their services, are pending before the Conciliation Officer.
3. He draws the attention of this Court to the offer of appointment dated 03rd June, 2016, issued by the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation
(“ESIC”) to the petitioners to submit that the petitioners have been directly engaged by the ESIC and not through any contractor.
4. However, subsequently the petitioners have been engaged through a contractor.
5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the present petition has been filed solely on the ground that since conciliation proceedings are now pending before the Conciliation Officer, the respondents may not change the service conditions of the petitioners in violation of Section 90 of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 (“IR Code”), which is pari materia to Section 33 of the now repealed Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“ID Act”).
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1-ESIC submits that from the reading of the petition, it is clear that the petitioners are continuing to work with respondent no. 1-ESIC uninterruptedly and no obstruction as such has been created in their employment.
7. He, thus, submits that the present petition is a premature in nature.
8. Considering the submissions made before this Court and noting the fact that the petitioners are continuing to work with the respondent no. 1- ESIC, it is directed that the provisions under Section 90 of the IR Code/Section 33 of the now repealed ID Act, shall not be contravened, in any manner whatsoever, on account of the fact that the petitioners have approached the Conciliation Officer with a prayer for their regularisation.
9. Needless to state, this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case of the petitioners for regularisation.
10. Noting the aforesaid, the present petition along with the pending application is disposed of. MINI PUSHKARNA, J SEPTEMBER 18, 2026 ak