Delhi High Court
W.P.(C)/3864/2012 of SHASHI EXPORTS PVT LTD Vs GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. on 24 July 2026
Page 1 of 3 $~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3864/2012 & CM APPL. 2414/2017, CM APPL. 46138/2017, CM APPL. 35086/2018 SHAHI EXPORTS PVT LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Neelima Tripathi, Sr. Adv with Ms. Sonam Tripathi, Ms. Kriti Sharma & Ms. Anjali Kaushik,
$~10
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+
W.P.(C) 3864/2012 & CM APPL. 2414/2017, CM APPL.
46138/2017, CM APPL. 35086/2018
SHAHI EXPORTS PVT LIMITED
.....Petitioner
Through:
Ms. Neelima Tripathi, Sr. Adv
with Ms. Sonam Tripathi, Ms.
Kriti Sharma & Ms. Anjali
Kaushik, Advs.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. .....Respondents Through:
Mr. Raghvendra Upadhyay, PC
CNCTD with Mr. Purnima Jain
& Ms. Shivpa Taneja, Advs.
Mr. Nitesh Garwal & Ms.
Anuradha, Advs. for R-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
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
%
24.07.2026
1. The present petition has been filed seeking setting aside of the impugned Order no. F.8/JLC/SD/2012/5932 dated 20.06.2012, passed by the Respondent No. 2, whereby it was held that 100 workmen had been retrenched from services and thus, directing the Petitioner/Company to make a payment of ₹8,12,084/- to the said 100 workmen as wages for the month of May 2012.
2. Ms. Tripathi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, states that the management without prejudice to its legal rights and the disputes that may be raised by the Respondent/ workmen in future, is willing to comply with the impugned order only to the extent of payment of wages as directed. She submits that the same shall not be construed as admission of any right of the workmen to claim any wages in future.
3. The suggestion made by Ms. Tripathi commends this Court.
4. Admittedly, the impugned order only directs payment of one month’s wages to the alleged 100 retrenched workmen as per the annexure annexed with the impugned order.
5. It has been pointed out that the management has already settled with 45 out of the 100 workmen. The management is now complying with the impugned order and is willing to pay one month’s wages to the 55 workmen as a goodwill gesture in order to cut short the prolonged litigation.
6. Ms. Tripathi, submits that a sum of ₹4,00,000/- is lying deposited with the Registrar General of this Court, carrying an interest in a fixed deposit. She submits that the said amount will be disbursed to the remaining workmen after verifying their identities and if some workmen are left and their wages are not satisfied from the amount released by the Registrar General, the balance amount would also be paid within a period of four weeks. She submits that for the said purpose, the remaining 55 workmen may be directed to approach the management on any Saturday after two weeks at 12:00 noon at Shahi Exports Pvt. Ltd., Industrial Area, Plot No. 1, Sector-28, Faridabad.
7. Considering the aforesaid submissions, the petition is disposed of, with the following directions: -
a) As regards the settlement of claims of the 45 workmen, the Petitioner is directed to file an Affidavit furnishing the details of the said 45 workmen, within a period of one weeks from date;
b) The Petitioner shall pay the amount payable to the 55 workmen in terms of the impugned order, within two weeks from date, together with simple interest @ 8% per annum from the date it became due until the date of its actual realization;
(c) The 55 workmen may approach the management on any Saturday (after two weeks from date) at 12:00 noon at Shahi Exports Pvt. Ltd., Industrial Area, Plot No. 1, Sector-28, Faridabad.
8. It is made clear that all the rights and contentions of the parties viz-a-viz the contentions that the workmen were not retrenched and they have no right for any future wages shall remain open and shall be adjudicated as and when any dispute is raised in that regard before the learned Labour Court.
9. The Registrar General is directed to release the amount deposited pursuant to the order dated 04.07.2012 to the Petitioner with all the accrued interest.
10. The petition stands disposed of, along with all pending applications. AMIT MAHAJAN, J JULY 24, 2026 “SK”