D.T.C. vs Prem Singh & Ors.

$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
st
% Date of Decision: 1 September, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010247742003
+ W.P.(C) 4703/2003 & CM APPL. 8223/2003
D.T.C. .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Manisha Tyagi, Adv.
versus
PREM SINGH & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Vinay Sabharwal with Mr.
Karvnesh Shah, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed seeking setting aside of the
Order dated 26.04.2002, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour
Court, whereby the Application filed by the Petitioner/Management
under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedural Code, 1908, was
dismissed and the Award dated 13.05.2002 passed in I.D. No.
909/1996, whereby the Respondent was directed to be reinstated with
continuity of service along with full back wages.
2. Succinctly stated, the Respondent was appointed as conductor
with the Petitioner on 15.11.1979. Allegedly, while performing his
duty as a conductor on Mangol Puri D Block, he was caught by the
checking staff of the Petitioner while selling bogus tickets to the
passengers and also possessing bogus tickets at his residence.
3. Consequently, the challan was issued, and Chargesheet dated
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4703/2003 Page 1 of 8
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
19:26:34

07.08.1987 was issued to the Respondent. The FIR No. 265/87 dated
29.07.1987 was registered at Police Station Mangolpuri, against the
Respondent under section 420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860.
4. After conducting the enquiry, the enquiry report was submitted
by the Enquiry Officer on 14.09.1987, whereby all the charges of
misconduct were held to be proved.
5. The Disciplinary Authority, passed the Order dated 20.01.1988,
terminating the services of the Respondent.
6. Vide Judgment dated 01.04.1995, the Respondent was acquitted
in the pending criminal case. It was observed that only formal witness
PW2 – HC Kaptan Singh and PW1- ATI Ishwar Singh were examined
by the prosecution. After consideration of the evidence of the PW1, it
was held that no evidence was produced to prove that the Respondent
made the tickets, or induced any person to purchase the tickets or he
sold these tickets. Hence, no offence under sections 420/468/471
could be proved and thus, the Respondent was acquitted by granting
him benefit of doubt.
7. As disclosed in the Statement of Claim filed by the Respondent,
after the said acquittal, he sent a Letter/Demand Notice dated
08.05.1995 and 05.06.1995 to the management seeking reinstatement,
however, no response was received.
8. It is further disclosed that he filed the statement of claim dated
27.06.1995 before the Conciliation Officer, Rajouri Road, Delhi,
which was referred to the Learned Labour Court on 12.11.1996.
9. Order dated 22.02.2002 was passed by the Learned Labour
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4703/2003 Page 2 of 8
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
19:26:34

Court, whereby the issue whether the enquiry has been conducted in
accordance with principles of natural justice, was decided in favour of
the Respondent. It observed that the enquiry had commenced and
concluded on 11.09.1987 and that ATI Ishwar Singh, who was relied
upon as the principal witness, had merely adopted his pre-recorded
report dated 29.07.1987 instead of having his statement recorded and
being examined in the presence of the workman. The learned Labour
Court further observed that no other management witness was
examined during the enquiry and, consequently, the workman was not
afforded an effective opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses
relied upon by the management. It was specifically noted that the
management has not sought an opportunity in its written statement to
lead evidence on the merits in the event the enquiry was held invalid.
10. Order dated 24.04.2002, records that the case was specifically
fixed for management evidence on Issue No. 2. The management,
through its AR, categorically stated that it did not want to lead any
evidence on Issue No. 2, whereupon management evidence was
closed. The workman's statement was then recorded and his evidence
was also closed. It is further recorded that, at that stage, only after
closing of the evidence, the management moved the application under
Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, seeking to amend its written statement
so as to introduce a plea that, if the enquiry was found defective, it
should be permitted to lead evidence on merits.
11. Vide impugned Order dated 26.04.2002, the learned Labour
Court, dismissed the Application filed by the Petitioner/Management
under Order VI Rule 17. It was held that the case pertains to a
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4703/2003 Page 3 of 8
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
19:26:34

termination of the year 1988; the reference was made in the year 1996
and the matter had already progressed substantially, yet no such plea
was ever raised by the management. It was further observed that the
management was required to seek leave to lead additional evidence, in
the alternative and without prejudice to its stand, at the stage of filing
the written statement itself, and now cannot be permitted to lead
evidence after a lapse of several years. The learned Labour Court was
particularly conscious that allowing the amendment would result in
further delay in adjudication of the dispute which had already
remained pending for about seven years and would cause grave
prejudice to the Workman.
12. Vide the impugned Award dated 13.05.2002, the learned Labour
Court noted that the domestic enquiry had already been held vitiated
vide Order dated 22.02.2002 and as the Management had not sought
permission in its written statement to lead evidence to prove the
misconduct on merits, no such opportunity could be granted to it
thereafter. It was further noted that the Management also failed to lead
evidence on Issue No. 2 and on 24.04.2002, expressly stated that it did
not wish to lead evidence regarding the Workman’s gainful
employment, whereupon its evidence was closed. Consequently, the
learned Labour Court held that the allegations of selling and
possessing bogus tickets remained unproved and the termination was
illegal and since the Management also failed to discharge the burden
of proving gainful employment, directed reinstatement of the
Workman with continuity of service and full back wages.
13. Aggrieved the present petition has been filed
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4703/2003 Page 4 of 8
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
19:26:34

14. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the learned
Labour Court ought to have awarded opportunity to the Petitioner to
lead evidence on the misconduct. It is submitted that the checking
report, challan, FIR, enquiry report and other material on record
established the misconduct, which the Labour Court failed to
appreciate. Additionally, the subsequent acquittal in the FIR, was
because benefit of doubt had been extended to the Respondent and the
same is of no consequence as departmental proceedings are decided
on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and are not subject to
the strict rules applicable to criminal trials. It is further submitted that
the industrial dispute was raised after an unexplained delay of about
eight years.
15. Lastly, it is submitted that even if the termination is held illegal,
reinstatement with full back wages is not automatic. In view of the
Respondent’s superannuation; considerable amount paid under 17B of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the long passage of time, lump-
sum compensation would meet the ends of justice.
16. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the Respondent has
vehemently opposed the petition and submits that the domestic
enquiry was rightly held to be vitiated and, since the Petitioner had not
reserved its right in the written statement to lead evidence on the
merits of the charges in the event of the enquiry being set aside, no
such opportunity could subsequently be granted. As regards the delay,
the same has been attributed to attempts of conciliation and resolution
of the dispute with the Petitioner and the pending criminal case.
Hence, it is urged that the petition be dismissed.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4703/2003 Page 5 of 8
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
19:26:34

17. I have heard the parties and perused the material on record.
18. As regards the foundational issue of opportunity to lead
evidence on merits, this Court does not approve of the manner in
which the Petitioner proceeded before the learned Labour Court. The
Petitioner had ample opportunity to seek permission to lead evidence
on the merits of the alleged misconduct, but failed to incorporate such
a plea in its written statement and, even thereafter, when the matter
was specifically fixed for its evidence, categorically stated that it did
not wish to lead any evidence, resulting in closure of its evidence. The
subsequent plea that the omission was inadvertent, followed by a
request to introduce the plea after its evidence had been closed, cannot
be viewed favourably. Nevertheless, the aforesaid procedural lapse on
the part of the Petitioner could not, in the facts of the present case,
justify denying an opportunity to the Petitioner to establish the alleged
misconduct on merits, when the request has been made during the
pendency of the proceedings. The learned Labour Court, being the
fact-finding forum, ought to have afforded such an opportunity and
thereafter adjudicated the allegations on the basis of the evidence led
by the parties.
19. Though much emphasis has been laid upon the subsequent
acquittal of the Respondent in the criminal proceedings arising out of
the FIR, the same could also not, by itself, conclude the issue of
misconduct in the present proceedings. It is well settled that the
standards governing a criminal prosecution and a disciplinary
proceeding are distinct, and the alleged misconduct could have been
examined by the learned Labour Court on the touchstone of
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4703/2003 Page 6 of 8
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
19:26:34

preponderance of probabilities. The acquittal in the criminal
proceedings, therefore, would not have precluded the Petitioner from
seeking to establish the charges in the industrial adjudication.
20. However, this Court is conscious of the fact that the alleged
misconduct pertains to the year 1987, the Respondent was terminated
from service in the year 1988, and the industrial dispute was thereafter
referred in the year 1996. The Award itself was passed on 13.05.2002
and the present petition has remained pending for more than two
decades thereafter. The Respondent has also attained the age of
superannuation. It has been pointed out that subsistence allowance
under 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 already stands paid to
the Respondent. At this stage, remanding the matter to the learned
Labour Court to permit the parties to lead evidence on the alleged
misconduct, after a lapse of nearly four decades from the date of the
incident, would serve no useful purpose and would only prolong an
already protracted litigation.
21. In these circumstances, the relief, therefore, requires to be
moulded keeping in view the extraordinary passage of time, the
superannuation of the Respondent and the fact that the dispute has
remained pending for several decades. In order to bring quietus to the
dispute and avoid any further round of litigation between the parties,
and considering that the Respondent had worked for about 8-9 years
with the management before the termination, a lump-sum
compensation of ₹4,00,000/- to the Respondent would meet the ends
of justice. The same is directed to be paid by the Petitioner within four
weeks from date.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4703/2003 Page 7 of 8
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
19:26:34

22. Though much emphasis was laid by the Petitioner regarding
delay of 8 years now, but that also does not, by itself, persuade this
Court to deny relief, that too when the same issue was never
enthusiastically agitated before the learned Labour Court. While the
Respondent was terminated in 1988, it is borne out from the record
that the criminal proceedings arising out of the same incident were
pending and the Respondent has stated that he was awaiting their
outcome. The Respondent was acquitted vide judgment dated
01.04.1995 and thereafter approached the Management seeking
reinstatement in May/June 1995. Having received no response, he
approached the Conciliation Officer and filed his statement of claim
on 27.06.1995, whereafter the dispute was ultimately referred to the
learned Labour Court on 12.11.1996. Thus, although there was a
period between the termination and the initiation of the proceedings,
the circumstances placed on record provide an explanation for the
same, and the delay, in the facts of the present case, does not warrant
denial of relief.
23. Accordingly, the impugned Award is modified, and the petition
is disposed, along with pending application(s), if any.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
SEPTEMBER 1, 2026
“SK”
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4703/2003 Page 8 of 8
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
19:26:34