M/S Delhi Transco Ltd. vs Nirmal Kumar
- Court
- Delhi High Court
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on : 13.08.2026
Pronounced on : 13.11.2026
Uploaded on : 14.11.2026
# CNR No. DLHC011462942018
+ W.P. (C) 11450/2018
M/S DELHI TRANSCO LTD. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhishek Gautam, Advocate
versus
NIRMAL KUMAR .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Sunita Rani, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
JUDGMENT
1. By way of the present petition filed under Article 226 read with
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/management has
assailed the order dated 28.02.2018 passed by the learned Presiding
Officer, Labour Court, South-West District, Dwarka Courts, New
Delhi, in LIR No. 6044/16 (Old ID No. 07/2013).
Vide the impugned order, the Labour Court decided the
preliminary issue in favour of the respondent/workman, holding that
the domestic enquiry conducted against him was not fair and proper as
per the principles of natural justice.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 11450/2018 Page 1 of 16
Digitally SignedPREM
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:14.11.2026
14:16:27
2. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court in terms of the
following reference:
“ Whether the removal from services of Sh. Nirmal Kumar S/o Sh.
Mohan Kumar is legal and or /justified , if yes, to what relief he is
entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect? ”
3. The workman claimed before the Labour Court that he was
appointed with the management as an „Asstt. Line Mate‟ on daily
wages on compassionate grounds on 26.02.2002, and was regularised
on 06.06.2003.
4. A perusal of the record shows that after his appointment, the
workman submitted an attestation form to the management. Column
no. 12 of the said form required the applicant to disclose whether any
case was pending against him in any Court of law at the time of filling
up the form, to which he answered “NO”. However, subsequent police
verification revealed that 4 criminal cases had been registered against
him. The management thereafter served upon him a charge
memorandum dated 13.05.2004, alleging that he had furnished false
information in his attestation form and concealed his involvement in
criminal cases. He was subsequently removed from service vide order
dated 16.06.2005.
5. The workman claimed before the Labour Court that he had been
falsely implicated in the said cases on account of family rivalry, and
had since been exonerated in all of them. He further claimed that since
he was illiterate, he had got the form filled by some other person, who
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 11450/2018 Page 2 of 16
Digitally SignedPREM
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:14.11.2026
14:16:27
did not ask him about any criminal case, and he had only signed it. He
also alleged that he was not given an opportunity to produce the
person who had filled up his form, and that the penalty of removal was
too harsh. He prayed for reinstatement with full back wages and
continuity of service.
6. The management, inter alia , raised a preliminary objection that
it was not an “industry” under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 (hereinafter the “ID Act”). On merits, it was submitted that
the workman had admittedly furnished false information in his
attestation form and concealed his involvement in criminal cases. A
departmental enquiry was conducted against him under Rule 14 of the
Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,
1965, in which full opportunity of hearing was afforded to him. The
Inquiry Officer held the charge proved vide report dated 21.03.2005,
and the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of removal from
service. His appeal and revision were rejected, and his mercy petition,
filed more than 5 years thereafter, was also rejected vide order dated
25.01.2012. It was further submitted that the workman had stated in
th
his attestation form that he had attended school till the 10 standard,
and had signed it in English, which belied his plea of illiteracy. It was
also submitted that his acquittal or exoneration in the criminal cases
did not absolve him of the charge of furnishing false information and
concealment.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 11450/2018 Page 3 of 16
Digitally SignedPREM
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:14.11.2026
14:16:27
7. The Labour Court initially framed only two issues on
08.12.2014, as to whether the management was covered under the
definition of “industry” under the ID Act, and the second issue
pertained to the terms of the reference. However, on 15.03.2016, both
parties pointed out that a domestic enquiry had been conducted against
the workman but no issue to that effect had been framed. Accordingly,
the Labour Court framed an additional issue and recast the issues as
follows:
“ 1. Whether the enquiry conducted by the management is not fair
and proper as per principles of natural justice?OPW.
2. Whether the management is covered under the definition of
“Industry” under the Industrial Disputes Act? OPW
3. As per terms of reference. ”
Vide the same order dated 15.03.2016, the Labour Court also
directed that issue no. 1 be treated as a preliminary issue and decided
first.
8. By way of the impugned order, the Labour Court decided issue
no. 1 in favour of the workman. It noted that the workman, who had
th
studied up to the 9 standard, simply admitted his guilt before the
Inquiry Officer, and that after the prosecution brief was filed, the
matter was closed without giving him any further opportunity to
submit his defence. Relying upon a decision rendered by a learned
Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka in ACC Babcock Ltd. Vs.
1
Bhimsa , the Labour Court held that an admission accompanied by
1
(1987) 71 FJR 384
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 11450/2018 Page 4 of 16
Digitally SignedPREM
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:14.11.2026
14:16:27
reasons is not an admission of guilt, and that an enquiry must still be
held to allow the workman to show extenuating circumstances. It
further held that the workman was not cautioned about the
consequences of his admission, and that his defence assistant made no
effort in his interest. Placing reliance on Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab
2
National Bank , the Labour Court concluded that the charge could not
be held proved on the sheer admission of guilt without a regular
enquiry, and therefore held the enquiry to be not fair and proper.
9. Aggrieved by the said order, the management has preferred the
present writ petition.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner/management contends that
the workman admitted the charge twice before the Inquiry Officer,
first on 27.10.2004 and again on 03.12.2004, the second time in the
presence of his defence assistant. He submits that the workman
himself stated that he had furnished wrong information in column no.
12 of the attestation form out of fear that he would lose the job, which
demonstrates intentional concealment on his part. Learned counsel
places reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Central
3
Bank of India Vs. Karunamoy Banerjee to contend that once a
workman admits his guilt, requiring the management to lead evidence
is an empty formality. It is further contended that the plea of illiteracy
is belied by the conduct of the workman. Learned counsel also
2
(2009) 2 SCC 570
3
1967 SCC OnLine SC 65
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 11450/2018 Page 5 of 16
Digitally SignedPREM
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:14.11.2026
14:16:27
contends that the concealment of his criminal antecedents in the
attestation form constitutes a separate misconduct in itself, on which
his acquittal in the said criminal cases has no bearing. Reliance in this
regard is placed upon Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs. Ram Ratan
4 5
Yadav , Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Uttaranchal , and Avtar Singh
6
Vs. Union of India . Reliance is also placed upon State Bank of
7
Travancore Vs. Prem Singh to contend that an employee terminated
for loss of confidence cannot be reinstated even if the enquiry is held
to be bad.
11. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent/workman
supports the impugned order and submits that the petition is not
maintainable as it assails a finding on a preliminary issue, which can
be challenged only after the final award, and relies upon Cooper
8
Engineering Ltd. Vs. P.P. Mundhe and D.P. Maheshwari Vs. Delhi
9
Administration & Ors. . On merits, it is submitted that the enquiry was
conducted in English, which the workman could not understand; no
evidence was led to prove the charge; and he was not given an
opportunity to lead evidence, particularly to examine the person who
had filled up his attestation form.
4
AIR 2003 SC 1709
5
(2013) 9 SCC 363
6
(2016) 8 SCC 471
7
2019 SCC OnLine Del 8258
8
(1975) 2 SCC 661
9
(1983) 4 SCC 293
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 11450/2018 Page 6 of 16
Digitally SignedPREM
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:14.11.2026
14:16:27
12. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and carefully
perused the record.
13. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take 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 natural justice (Ref: Syed Yakoob Vs. K.S.
10
Radhakrishnan ). The said principle was reiterated by the Supreme
Court in International Airport Authority of India Vs. International Air
11
Cargo Workers Union . A Coordinate Bench of this Court has also
considered the scope of writ jurisdiction in Ritz Theatre Private
12
Limited Vs. Ramesh Chandra .
14. At the outset, it would be apposite to deal with the objection of
the workman that the present petition is premature. In Cooper
Engineering ( supra ) and D.P. Maheshwari ( supra ), the Supreme Court
cautioned against challenges to findings on preliminary issues, so that
the adjudication of industrial disputes is not unduly delayed. However,
the said decisions do not lay down an absolute bar on the exercise of
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against an
order passed on a preliminary issue.
10
1963 SCC OnLine SC 24
11
(2009) 13 SCC 374
12
2024 SCC OnLine Del 3633
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 11450/2018 Page 7 of 16
Digitally SignedPREM
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:14.11.2026
14:16:27
In the present case, the preliminary issue regarding the fairness
of the domestic enquiry was not raised by the management to defer the
adjudication of the dispute on merits, but was framed by the learned
Presiding Officer of the Labour Court after both parties pointed out
that no issue regarding the same had been framed by his learned
predecessor. Moreover, no question of fact arises for consideration in
the present petition, as the admission made by the workman before the
Inquiry Officer is a matter of record. The controversy before this Court
is confined to the legal effect of the said admission.
It may also be worth mentioning that the present writ petition
has remained pending since 2018, and the operation of the impugned
order has remained stayed since 23.10.2018. Relegating the
management to challenge the impugned findings only after the final
award is passed, at this stage, would only further prolong the
adjudication of the industrial dispute, which is precisely what the said
decisions sought to avoid. Therefore, the concerned objection of the
workman is rejected.
15. Coming to the merits of the matter, the Labour Court held the
enquiry to be unfair mainly because no evidence was led after the
workman admitted the charge. The controversy, therefore, turns on
whether the admission made by the workman was sufficient to hold
the charge proved. Simply put, if it was, the enquiry cannot be faulted
merely because no evidence was led. However, if it was not, the
enquiry would be vitiated.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 11450/2018 Page 8 of 16
Digitally SignedPREM
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:14.11.2026
14:16:27
16. A perusal of the record reveals that the workman initially denied
the charge, whereafter the concerned departmental enquiry was
conducted. On 27.10.2004, the workman appeared before the Inquiry
Officer without a defence assistant, and pleaded guilty. His statement
was recorded on the same date, the relevant portion of which is
reproduced below:
“ Q2. Whether he admit the charges leveled against him?
Ans: Yes.
…
Q6. Who has filled your Appointment Application form?
Ans: I have got it fill/written by some other person since I am not
literate enough to read and write.
…
Q8. Why did you furnished wrong information in the column
No. 12 in the attestation from?
Ans: Out of fear that I lose the Job. ”
17. The enquiry was thereafter adjourned on 10.11.2004 and again
on 19.11.2004, at the request of the workman, to enable him to engage
a defence assistant. On 03.12.2004, the workman appeared along with
his defence assistant, Sh. Vidya Sagar . The order sheet of that date,
which bears the signature of the workman, records as under:
“ The following are present :-
1. CO
2. PO
3. DA
The preliminary proceeding in the case came up for
hearing today. The PO Sh S.K.Dey and Sh Vidya Sagar DA of Sh
Nirmal Kumar, CO are present. Sh Vidya Sagar is allowed to act
as DA of Sh Nirmal Kumar, CO. The listed/relied upon documents
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 11450/2018 Page 9 of 16
Digitally SignedPREM
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:14.11.2026
14:16:27
as per Annexure-III of the charge sheet have been taken on record
and marked as Exht S-1, S-2, S-3, S-4, S-4A, S-5, S-5A.
The charged official has admitted the charges leveled
against him. The D.A of C.O is advised to submit his written
Defence brief statement of the case in next date of hearing, which
fixed for 10.12.2004 at 3:00 PM. ”
Thus, the admission of the workman was recorded on
03.12.2004 in the presence of his defence assistant. On 10.12.2004, the
defence assistant submitted a written statement regarding the status of
the criminal cases against the workman. Thereafter, the Inquiry
Officer, vide report dated 21.03.2005, held the charge to be proved,
noting that no regular hearing was needed since the workman had
admitted the charges. In his representation dated 16.04.2005 against
the said report, the workman himself stated as under:
“ That the departmental Inquiry was initiated against me where I
admitted the charges and submitted before the worthy Inquiry
officer, the position of all the cases, which is as under … ”
18. The impugned order is primarily based on the premise that an
admission accompanied by reasons is not an admission of guilt, and
that the charge could not be held proved without a regular enquiry.
19. To counter the same, the management has relied upon the
decision of the Supreme Court in Karunamoy Banerjee ( supra ). In the
said case, the workman had admitted his guilt at all stages. However,
the Labour Court held that the principles of natural justice had been
violated, inter alia , because the workman had been examined in the
first instance during the domestic enquiry. Rejecting this view, the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 11450/2018 Page 10 of 16
Digitally SignedPREM
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:14.11.2026
14:16:27
Supreme Court held that once a workman admits his guilt, requiring
the management to lead evidence would be an empty formality:
“ 18. … When once the workman himself has, in answer to
the charge levelled against him, admitted his guilt, in our opinion,
there will be nothing more for the management to enquire into.
That was the position in the case before us. Therefore, we are not
inclined to agree with the reasoning of the Labour Court that when
there has been an admission of guilt by the respondent himself, it
can still be stated that there is a violation of the principles of
natural justice merely because of the fact that the workman was
examined, in the first instance. …
19. We must, however, emphasize that the rules of natural
justice, as laid down by this Court, will have to be observed, in the
conduct of a domestic enquiry against a workman. If the
allegations are denied by the workman, it is needless to state that
the burden of proving the truth of those allegations will be on the
management; and the witnesses called by the management, must be
allowed to be cross-examined by the workman, and the latter must
also be given an opportunity to examine himself and adduce any
other evidence that he might choose in support of his plea. But, if
the workman admits his guilt to insist upon the management to let
in evidence about the allegations, will, in our opinion, only be an
empty formality. In such a case, it will be open to the management
to examine the workman himself, even in the first instance, so as to
enable him to offer any explanation for his conduct or to place
before the management any circumstances which will go to
mitigate the gravity of the offence. … ”
(emphasis supplied)
13
20. In Channabasappa Basappa Happali Vs. State of Mysore , a
police constable, when asked by the enquiring officer whether he
accepted the charges framed against him, answered “Yes”, and
thereafter offered an explanation for his conduct. It was argued before
the Supreme Court that he had admitted only the facts, and not his
13
(1971) 1 SCC 1
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 11450/2018 Page 11 of 16
Digitally SignedPREM
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:14.11.2026
14:16:27
guilt. Rejecting the said argument, the Supreme Court held that an
admission of the facts is an admission of guilt, even if it is
accompanied by qualifications:
“ 5. … The police constable here was not on his trial for a
criminal offence. It was a departmental enquiry, on facts of which
due notice was given to him. He admitted the facts. In fact his
counsel argued before us that he admitted the facts but not his
guilt. We do not see any distinction between admission of facts and
admission of guilt. When he admitted the facts, he was guilty. The
facts speak for themselves. …
6. … Even if we were to take the admission as a whole with
all its qualifications, we are quite clear that he admitted the facts
necessary to establish the charge against him. ”
21. Similarly, in Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India
14
Limited & Anr. Vs. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri & Ors. , the delinquent
had admitted the charges before the inquiry officer, but had also stated
the reasons for his absence. The Supreme Court held that the charges
stood fully proved, and considered his reasons only while examining
the quantum of punishment:
“ 10. The delinquent admitted the charges before the inquiry officer.
He stated:
“I admit the charges. However, I desire to state reasons for my
absence and are given below:
(i) I did not have any intention nor desire of disobeying order of
higher authority or violate any of the Company’s rule and
regulations, and
(ii) The reason is purely personal which cannot be produced by
any evidence to prove and is beyond my control.”
The admission on the part of delinquent before the inquiry officer
leaves no manner of doubt that the charges against the delinquent
stood fully proved. … ”
14
(2009) 15 SCC 620
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 11450/2018 Page 12 of 16
Digitally SignedPREM
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:14.11.2026
14:16:27
(emphasis supplied)
15
22. Further, in Manoj H. Mishra Vs. Union of India & Ors. , the
delinquent had denied the charges at the preliminary hearing, but later
admitted them before the inquiry officer. When the inquiry officer
declined to accept his admission as it was conditional, he made an
unequivocal admission, and the enquiry was closed without any
evidence being led. The Supreme Court held that he could not be
permitted to resile from his admission:
“ 35. … In view of the admissions made by the appellant, no
evidence was adduced before the enquiry officer by either of the
parties. Once the enquiry officer had declined to accept the
conditional admissions made by the appellant, it was open to him
to deny the charges. But he chose to make an unequivocal
admission, instead of reiterating his earlier denial as recorded in
preliminary hearing held on 26-12-1994. The appellant cannot
now be permitted to resile from the admission made before the
enquiry officer. … ”
23. In the present case, when the Inquiry Officer specifically asked
the workman whether he admitted the charges levelled against him, he
answered “Yes”. When asked why he had furnished wrong
information in column no. 12 of the attestation form, he stated that he
did so out of fear that he would lose the job. His admission was again
recorded on 03.12.2004, this time in the presence of his defence
assistant, and he acknowledged the same in his own representation
dated 16.04.2005 against the enquiry report. The workman, thus,
15
(2013) 6 SCC 313
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 11450/2018 Page 13 of 16
Digitally SignedPREM
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:14.11.2026
14:16:27
admitted the charge in clear and unequivocal terms, not once but
repeatedly.
24. The decisions relied upon by the Labour Court are
distinguishable. In the Karnataka High Court‟s decision in ACC
Babcock ( supra ), the enquiry consisted only of the charge-sheet and
the explanation given by the workman in reply to it, which was treated
as an admission, and the workman was not even examined. In Roop
Singh Negi ( supra ), the only evidence relied upon by the inquiry
officer was a confession purportedly made by the delinquent before
the police, which, according to him, he was forced to sign as he was
tortured in the police station. In the present case, the workman was
examined by the Inquiry Officer himself, and he admitted the charge
in answer to a specific question, and repeated it in the presence of his
defence assistant.
25. The Labour Court also held that the workman was not cautioned
about the consequences of his admission. However, though the
workman had no defence assistant when he first admitted the charge
on 27.10.2004, he repeated his admission on 03.12.2004 in the
presence of his defence assistant. The Labour Court further held that
the defence assistant made no effort in the interest of the workman,
and that the workman was not given an opportunity to submit his
defence. However, on 03.12.2004 itself, the defence assistant was
asked to submit a written defence brief, and he submitted a written
statement on 10.12.2004. As regards the submission that he was not
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 11450/2018 Page 14 of 16
Digitally SignedPREM
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:14.11.2026
14:16:27
given an opportunity to examine the person who had filled up his
attestation form, the order sheets of the enquiry do not record any
request by the workman to examine any witness. Moreover, in his
cross-examination before the Labour Court, the workman himself
stated, “ I do not know the person under whose instructions, I have
signed the attestation form. ”
26. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that
the Labour Court erred in holding that the enquiry was not fair and
proper. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed and the
impugned order is set aside.
27. The enquiry conducted by the management is held to be fair and
proper, and issue no. 1 is decided against the workman. The matter is
remanded to the Labour Court to decide the remaining issues in
accordance with law.
28. The management has also contended that the plea of illiteracy is
belied by the conduct of the workman, and that the concealment of
facts in the attestation form is a separate misconduct in itself, relying
upon Ram Ratan Yadav ( supra ), Devendra Kumar ( supra ), and Avtar
Singh ( supra ). It has further contended, relying upon Prem Singh
( supra ), that an employee terminated for loss of confidence cannot be
reinstated even if the enquiry is held to be bad. These contentions go
to the merits of the dispute and the relief, which are yet to be decided
by the Labour Court. Therefore, this Court is refraining from
examining them at this stage.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 11450/2018 Page 15 of 16
Digitally SignedPREM
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:14.11.2026
14:16:27
29. Needless to state that nothing observed hereinabove shall
amount to an expression on the merits of the case and shall not have a
bearing on the adjudication of the remaining issues by the Labour
Court.
30. The parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court on
01.12.2026.
31. A copy of this judgment be communicated to the Labour Court
concerned.
(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 13, 2026
nb
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 11450/2018 Page 16 of 16
Digitally SignedPREM
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:14.11.2026
14:16:27