Delhi Transport Corporation vs Sh. Suresh Kumar
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 18.08.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010351482020
+ W.P.(C) 10855/2020
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Aditi Gupta, Advocate
versus
SH. SURESH KUMAR .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Rashmi B. Singh, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The present writ petition has been preferred by the
petitioner/management challenging the order dated 20.05.2017, whereby
the domestic enquiry conducted against the respondent/workman was held
to be perverse and set aside, as well as the final award dated 17.08.2020,
whereby the removal of the respondent/workman from service was held to
be illegal and a lump-sum compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- was awarded to
him.
2. The workman raised the industrial dispute by filing a direct
statement of claim before the Labour Court under the provisions of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter the “ID Act”), challenging the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 10855/2020 Page 1 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:31.08.2026
19:01:07
removal order dated 25.04.2007 passed by the Depot Manager, Hasanpur
Depot of the management organisation.
3. Briefly stated, the workman claimed before the Labour Court that
he was appointed as a Driver with the management and was last posted at
Hasanpur Depot . He stated that he had remained absent from duty during
June and July 2006 on account of suffering from jaundice, for which he
had duly sent timely intimations and medical leave applications to the
depot through his neighbour and under Certificate of Posting (UPC). He
alleged that despite such intimation, the management falsely charge-
sheeted him on 29.08.2006 for unauthorized absence, conducted a
domestic enquiry in violation of principles of natural justice, and illegally
removed him from service vide order dated 25.04.2007.
4. The management contested the claim by filing its reply, contending
that the workman was a habitual absentee with past penalties on record
and that he remained absent unauthorizedly from 01.06.2006 to
03.08.2006 without any prior intimation. The management denied having
received any intimation or leave application from the workman and
maintained that he was removed following a fair and proper domestic
enquiry. In the alternative, the management prayed that if the enquiry was
held to be vitiated, it be granted an opportunity to prove the charges
before the Labour Court.
5. The following preliminary issue was framed by the Labour Court
on 06.01.2009:
“ 1. Whether free and fair enquiry conducted against the workman? ”
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 10855/2020 Page 2 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:31.08.2026
19:01:07
6. Vide the impugned order dated 20.05.2017, the Labour Court
decided the preliminary issue regarding the validity of the domestic
enquiry in favour of the workman, holding the findings of the Enquiry
Officer to be perverse for failing to consider the medical records from a
government hospital and the UPC intimation, and for not verifying the
workman’s plea of telephonic intimation with the depot records.
Consequently, the Labour Court set aside the enquiry and permitted the
management to lead evidence to prove the charges of misconduct before
the Labour Court.
7. Thereafter, the management led evidence on the issue of
misconduct by examining MW-2, and the workman examined himself as
WW-1. The Labour Court passed the impugned award dated 17.08.2020,
holding that the management failed to establish any misconduct, as the
workman had proved his illness through contemporaneous hospital
records and intimation via UPC, whereas the management failed to prove
service of its letters to the workman. Holding the termination to be illegal
and unjustified, and taking note of the workman’s age (around 59 years)
and long tenure of service, the Labour Court awarded a lump-sum
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement alongwith back
wages. Aggrieved thereby, the management has preferred the present writ
petition.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner/management contends that the
Labour Court erred in holding the domestic enquiry to be perverse after
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 10855/2020 Page 3 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:31.08.2026
19:01:07
having observed that proper procedure was followed. She contends that
UPC is not comparable to registered post and cannot constitute conclusive
proof of delivery when the receipt of such communication was denied by
the management. She further contends that the workman failed to
examine his neighbour Sh. Shri Pal , and that the findings arrived at by the
Labour Court are perverse.
9. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent/workman supports
the impugned order and award, submitting that the workman had
established genuine illness through OPD cards, medical prescriptions, and
fitness certificates issued by a government hospital. She submits that the
workman had dispatched the leave application and medical certificate
through UPC on 05.06.2006, whereas the management witness MW-2
admitted in cross-examination that the depot leave intimation register was
not produced and that the postal acknowledgment slips and leave records
of the workman had been destroyed, despite admitting that records of
cases pending in Courts are not destroyed.
10. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and carefully
examined the record.
11. Before proceeding further, this Court takes note of the limited
scope of writ jurisdiction in exercise of powers conferred under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled that the challenge is
not in the nature of an appeal, but to see if the order has been passed
without jurisdiction, is perverse, or does not follow the principles of
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 10855/2020 Page 4 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:31.08.2026
19:01:07
1
natural justice (Ref: Syed Yakoob Vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan ). The said
principle was reiterated by the Supreme Court in International Airport
2
Authority of India Vs. International Air Cargo Workers Union . This
Court has also considered the scope of writ jurisdiction in Ritz Theatre
3
Private Limited Vs. Ramesh Chandra .
12. A perusal of the record shows that while deciding the issue qua the
validity of the domestic enquiry vide the impugned order dated
20.05.2017, the Labour Court noted that the workman had placed on
record his OPD registration cards, medical prescriptions, and the fitness
certificate dated 01.08.2006 issued by the Delhi Nagar Nigam Hospital .
The Labour Court also noted that during the enquiry proceedings, the
workman had confronted the management’s witness Sh. Lal Singh with
the UPC receipt regarding dispatch of his leave application and
intimation, but the Enquiry Officer did not deal with this aspect in the
enquiry report. Further, when the management witness Sh. Johri Lal
admitted that telephonic intimations regarding illness were received by
the Duty Officer and entered into the depot register, the management
neither produced the register nor examined the Duty Officer to rebut the
workman’s plea that intimation had been sent through his neighbour on
02.06.2006. It was on account of these material omissions in the enquiry
report that the Labour Court found the conclusions of the Enquiry Officer
to be perverse and set aside the enquiry, while granting the management
1
1963 SCC OnLine SC 24
2
(2009) 13 SCC 374
3
2024 SCC OnLine Del 3633
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 10855/2020 Page 5 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:31.08.2026
19:01:07
an opportunity to prove the charges before the Labour Court.
13. A perusal of the record further shows that the management
examined MW-2/ Sh. Devender Pratap Singh , who admitted that the depot
register maintained to record intimations and leave applications of
workmen was not produced before the Labour Court. He also admitted
that no acknowledgment slips regarding service of the letters dated
19.06.2006, 10.07.2006, and 24.07.2006 were available with the
management as they had been destroyed, and that the leave records of the
workman had also been destroyed, even while admitting that records of
cases pending in Courts are not destroyed. On the other hand, the
workman placed on record the UPC receipt (Ex. WW1/1) showing
dispatch of intimation on 05.06.2006 and the treatment and fitness records
from the Delhi Nagar Nigam Hospital (Ex. WW1/2 to Ex. WW1/4)
establishing his sickness during the period in question.
14. The Labour Court found that the workman had established his
illness through contemporaneous hospital records and had sent intimation
to the management, whereas the management failed to establish service of
its letters upon the workman or produce its depot register(s). On the basis
of these facts, the Labour Court arrived at the finding that the
management was aware of the illness of the workman and that there was
no misconduct on his part, and accordingly held the termination to be
illegal and unjustified.
15. Considering all the above, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the findings arrived at by the Labour Court in the impugned order as
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 10855/2020 Page 6 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:31.08.2026
19:01:07
well as the impugned award are based on a plausible appreciation of the
evidence and do not suffer from any perversity or infirmity warranting
interference under writ jurisdiction.
16. Insofar as the relief is concerned, the Labour Court took into
consideration the fact that the workman was about 59 years of age at the
time, had a long tenure of service, and that considerable time had elapsed
since the date of removal, and accordingly deemed it appropriate to grant
a lump-sum compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement
alongwith back wages and other consequential benefits. The said exercise
of discretion by the Labour Court is also reasonable and calls for no
modification.
17. Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed.
18. The amount of Rs.2,00,000/- lying deposited with the Registrar
General of this Court, along with the interest accrued thereupon, is
directed to be released to the respondent/workman upon due verification.
The petitioner/management is further directed to pay the remaining award
amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the respondent/workman within a period of 4
weeks from today, failing which the said amount shall carry interest @
9% per annum from the date of this order until its realization.
(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
JUDGE
AUGUST 18, 2026
nb
corrected and released on 31.08.2026
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 10855/2020 Page 7 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:31.08.2026
19:01:07