Delhi Transport Corporatiion vs Tribhuwan Singh

$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
nd
% Date of Decision: 2 September, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC011318542012
+ W.P.(C) 5018/2012 & CM APPL. 13057/2021
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATIION .....Petitioner
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC, DTC
with Mr. N.K. Singh, Ms. Aliza
Alam, Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat
and Ms. Ananya Saxena, Advs.
versus
TRIBHUWAN SINGH .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Pankaj Chauhan, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)
1. The present writ petition is filed under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 19.08.2009 and award
dated 16.05.2011 (hereafter referred to as ‘impugned award’ ) passed
in I.D. No. 136/11, whereby the learned Labour Court held that the
report of the Enquiry Officer suffers from perversity, and held that the
termination of the Respondent/workman is illegal and unjustified.
2. Briefly stated, the workman was appointed by Delhi Transport
Corporation ( ‘DTC’ ) on 08.02.1972 and was confirmed for the post of
Conductor on 01.12.1973 and was posted at Kalkaji Depot.
3. On 06.01.1987, the workman performed his duties and returned
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5018/2012 Page 1 of 11
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:03.09.2026
18:25:23

to the designated depot, deposited the waybill and the cash with the
cashier and kept the unused tickets and bag of money in his locker no.
579.
4. Thereafter, the workman fell ill; applied for medical leave from
07.01.1987 to 11.01.1987. In the interim, on 09.01.1987, his locker
was checked by the checking staff. He joined his duty back on
12.01.1987; and performed duty till 21.01.1987.
5. On 22.01.1987, the workman came to know that he had been
suspended from his duty through the attendance register, as it was
mentioned ‘Suspended’ against his name.
6. The workman was served with a chargesheet on 30.01.1987,
alleging misconduct on account of misappropriation of government
funds. The workman enquired regarding the reason for suspension, to
which he was apprised that, in his absence on 09.01.1987, his locker
was checked by the authorities, and the tickets and bag of money were
found short.
7. The enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Report dated
28.08.1988 was submitted holding that the charges against the
employee stood proved.
8. Thereafter, on 05.09.1988, the Disciplinary Authority issued
Show Cause Notice to the workman. Upon consideration of the
Reply/Representation filed by the workman, the Disciplinary
Authority, vide Order dated 28.09.1988, removed him from service
w.e.f. 29.09.1988.
9. Pursuant to the termination, the workman filed a suit for
declaration and mandatory injunction before the learned Civil Judge,
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5018/2012 Page 2 of 11
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:03.09.2026
18:25:23

Tis Hazari Court vide Civil Suit No. 677/1988 , which was dismissed
by the learned Civil Court on 19.01.1988 with the observations that
the suit had been filed in the wrong forum and the learned Court did
not have jurisdiction to decide Industrial disputes.
10. Thereafter, the workman preferred an appeal vide RCA No.
77/2000 before the learned ADJ assailing the order dated 19.01.1988.
The learned ADJ, vide Order dated 27.09.2003, dismissed the appeal
of the workman and observed that the appropriate remedy lies before
the learned Labour Court.
11. Thereafter, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the
learned Labour Court questioning the legality of the order.
12. The learned Labour Court framed issues vide order dated
01.12.2004, which reads as under:
“i) Whether services of workman have been terminated illegally
and unjustifiably by the management and if so, what relief is he
entitled to?
ii) Relief.
13. Thereafter, vide order dated 14.12.2005 additional issues were
framed, which reads as under:
“i) Whether the inquiry conducted by the management was just
and fair and the issue was treated as preliminary.
14. The learned Labour Court, while deciding the preliminary issue
vide order dated 19.08.2009, held that the enquiry officer did not
appreciate that witnesses had given contradictory statements and held
the report of the enquiry officer perverse.
15. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court vide impugned award
dated 16.05.2011, held that the enquiry conducted by the petitioner
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5018/2012 Page 3 of 11
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:03.09.2026
18:25:23

was deficient and suffered illegality and granted the workman benefits
till the date of superannuation, including all the retirement benefits as
per the rules.
16. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition has been filed.
17. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the workman
was terminated from service on 28.09.1988, and the workman has
raised the industrial dispute only in November 2003 and filed a claim
under Section 10-4A of the Industrial Disputes Act, after a gap of
nearly 15 years. He submits that this objection was taken specifically
by the petitioner in the written statement, yet the learned labour court
failed to frame an issue on the aspect of delay.
18. He submits that even assuming the termination was found to be
illegal, the grant of full back wages and continuity of service was
wholly unwarranted on the facts of this case. He submits that back
wages are not an automatic or natural consequence of a finding of
illegal termination, and they are required to be independently
examined. He submits that without considering the facts, the learned
Labour Court granted relief to the workman.
19. Per contra , the learned counsel for the workman submits that
there was no bar in law to the workman approaching the learned
Labour Court directly under Section 10-4A of the Industrial Disputes
Act, and that the delay stands duly explained as the workman was
misguided, the workman also remained unemployed throughout and
continued to pursue his remedy against an illegal termination.
20. He submits that the preliminary issue stands decided in the
workman's favour by order dated 19.08.2009, and that the petitioner
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5018/2012 Page 4 of 11
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:03.09.2026
18:25:23

had admittedly not challenged the order. He submits that this finding
has therefore attained finality, and it is not open to the petitioner to re-
agitate the correctness of the enquiry at this belated stage.
21. He further submits that the charge against the workman was
entirely concocted, that the workman was on sanctioned leave and
thereafter worked regularly and without any complaint; the workman
was depositing his tickets and cash with the cashier every day. He
submits that it was only on 22.01.1987 that the workman was
suspended.
22. He further submitted that the workman’s locker was illegally
opened in his absence, without notice to him, and without being
sealed. It is contended that after resuming work for more than 10 days
there were no shortage tickets recorded against the workman.
Thereafter, demonstrates that the charge was fabricated to falsely
implicate him.
23. I have heard the counsel and perused the record.
24. At the outset, it is necessary to note that the scope of
interference under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
with an Award passed by the Learned Tribunal. This Court’s
interference is only warranted where the findings are perverse, based
on no evidence, suffer from patent illegality or disclose a jurisdictional
error. This Court, while exercising writ jurisdiction, cannot re-
appreciate the evidence led before the learned Labour Court as though
rehearing the matter on facts. Merely because another view on the
evidence is possible would not justify interference. Reference in this
regard may be made to the judgment in International Airport
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5018/2012 Page 5 of 11
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:03.09.2026
18:25:23

Authority of India v. International Air Cargo Workers
Union : (2009) 13 SCC 374 where the Hon’ble Apex Court held as
under: -
“47. It is true that in exercising the writ
jurisdiction, the High Court cannot sit in appeal
over the findings and award of the Industrial
Tribunal and therefore, cannot reappreciate
evidence. The findings of fact recorded by a fact-
finding authority should ordinarily be considered
as final. The findings of the Tribunal should not
be interfered with in writ jurisdiction merely on
the ground that the material on which the
Tribunal had acted was insufficient or not
credible.
48. It is also true that as long as the findings of
fact are based on some materials which are
relevant, findings may not be interfered with
merely because another view is also possible.
But where the Tribunal records findings on no
evidence or irrelevant evidence, it is certainly
open to the High Court to interfere with the
award of the Industrial Tribunal.”
25. A perusal of the order dated 19.08.2009 reveals that the learned
Labour Court, while deciding the preliminary issue in favour of the
workman, undertook a detailed examination of the evidence adduced
during the enquiry. The learned Labour Court noted that the
workman's locker had not been opened in the presence of the
workman, nor in the presence of the Depot Manager or the security
guard, namely Sh. Daulat Ram, who was admittedly on duty at the
relevant time. It was further observed that the workman had not been
informed before the locker was opened and that the checking of the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5018/2012 Page 6 of 11
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:03.09.2026
18:25:23

locker had not been conducted in the manner prescribed under Para 7
of Traffic Manual No. 4, as no independent physical witnesses were
associated with the proceedings.
26. The learned Labour Court further noted that Sh. Daulat Ram,
during his cross-examination, categorically deposed that when the
officials checked the tickets, no deficiency was found therein.
Likewise, the Ticket In-charge, Sh. Krishan Chand, did not depose
that he had himself checked the tickets or that any discrepancy or
deficiency had been detected. Thus, the material witnesses produced
by the petitioner failed to substantiate the allegations. In the absence
of cogent evidence demonstrating adherence to the prescribed
procedure or establishing the alleged misconduct, the learned Labour
Court concluded that the enquiry suffered from perversity and that the
enquiry was " not as per principle of natural justice."
27. It has been rightly observed by the learned Labour
Court, vide Award dated 16.05.2011, that the petitioner failed to
establish, by cogent and reliable evidence, that any notice had been
served upon the workman prior to the opening of his locker. Upon a
careful appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned Labour
Court found that no contemporaneous document evidencing issuance
or service of such notice had been produced. Equally significant was
the fact that the petitioner was unable to prove that the locker had been
sealed immediately after the alleged recovery, thereby casting serious
doubt on the sanctity of the procedure adopted. The learned Labour
Court further took note of the undisputed circumstance that the
workman continued to discharge his duties from 12.01.1987 till
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5018/2012 Page 7 of 11
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:03.09.2026
18:25:23

21.01.1987 without any restriction or objection from the management.
Had the allegations against the workman been as serious as alleged,
the conduct of the management in permitting him unrestricted access
to the workplace during the raid period would have been wholly
inconsistent with its stand.
28. On this basis, it was held that the petitioner had failed to prove
the misconduct alleged in the charge-sheet dated 30.01.1987, and that
the termination dated 29.09.1988 was illegal and unjustified and was
accordingly set aside. Since reinstatement could not be directed on
account of the workman having attained superannuation on
10.01.2004, the petitioner was directed to grant the workman
continuity of service and all consequential and retiral benefits from the
date of termination till superannuation, together with litigation costs of
Rs. 10,000/-.
29. This Court is of the view that the Learned Labour Court has
rightly considered all the evidence and facts placed on record and has
examined the evidence produced by the parties and returned a
considered finding on the fairness of the enquiry only after
appreciation of the material on record. The learned Labour Court has
rightly considered the evidence advanced by the parties and has taken
a plausible view.
30. Further, the objection raised by the petitioner regarding the
delay in filing of the dispute after 15 years of termination is without
merit.
31. It is not disputed that the workman, prior to raising a claim, had
filed a civil suit in the year 1988, which was dismissed and the appeal
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5018/2012 Page 8 of 11
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:03.09.2026
18:25:23

against the order of dismissal of the civil suit was also dismissed in
the year 2003. Thus, the workman was contesting the civil suit for a
period of almost 15 years. Undisputedly, the petitioner was a party to
the civil proceedings and had also taken an objection that the
workman has an alternate remedy in approaching the Industrial
Tribunal and therefore, the civil suit ought not to be entertained.
32. The said objection was accepted by the learned Civil Judge and
the suit was dismissed.
33. I have my reservations towards the order passed by the learned
Civil Judge since the remedy of the suit is not barred by any of the
provisions under the Industrial Disputes Act. However, at the same
time, a person cannot be left remediless, and if he has been following
a wrong remedy, he is entitled to take recourse to the appropriate
remedy and is also further entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the
Limitation Act.
34. As regards the question of relief, the workman, even prior to
approaching the learned Labour Court, had already attained the age of
superannuation. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, no order of
reinstatement or back wages can to be granted, and adequate
compensation would be sufficient.
35. The workman, prior to being terminated in the year 1988,
worked for 16 years with the petitioner. At the same time, it cannot be
disputed that the proceedings, including the enquiry proceedings, have
been mishandled by the petitioner and therefore, even though the
workman has been exonerated, the same cannot be said to be without
any reasonable doubt.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5018/2012 Page 9 of 11
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:03.09.2026
18:25:23

36. However, be that as it may, this Court cannot lose sight of the
fact that mere finding of wrongful termination/discontinuation does
not by itself grant a right of reinstatement or back wages to the
aggrieved employee. The Hon’ble Apex Court has repeatedly held that
reinstatement is not an automatic or mechanical consequence of an
order of termination being held illegal and that the relief must be
moulded having regard to the nature of employment, length of service
and the surrounding circumstances of the case. Reference in this
regard can be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Allahabad Bank v. Krishan Pal Singh : (2021) 19 SCC 227 . The
relevant extract of the same is reproduced hereinbelow:
“8. The directions issued by the High Court of Allahabad
for reinstatement were stayed by this Court on 23-8-2019
[Allahabad Bank v. Krishan Pal Singh, 2019 SCC OnLine
SC 2061] . During the pendency of these proceedings, the
respondent workman had attained age of superannuation.
Though, there was strong suspicion, there was no
acceptable evidence on record for dismissal of the
workman. However, as the workman has worked only for
a period of about six years and he has already attained
the age of superannuation, it is a fit case for modification
of the relief granted by the High Court. The reinstatement
with full back wages is not automatic in every case,
where termination/dismissal is found to be not in
accordance with procedure prescribed under law.
Considering that the respondent was in effective service
of the Bank only for about six years and he is out of
service since 1991, and in the meantime, respondent had
attained age of superannuation, we deem it appropriate
that ends of justice would be met by awarding lump sum
monetary compensation. We accordingly direct payment
of lump sum compensation of Rs 15 lakhs to the
respondent, within a period of eight weeks from today.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5018/2012 Page 10 of 11
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:03.09.2026
18:25:23

Failing to pay the same within the aforesaid period, the
respondent is entitled for interest @ 6% p.a., till
payment.”
37. In the opinion of this Court, in the facts and circumstances of
the present case, ends of justice will be met if the workman is awarded
compensation of ₹8,00,000/-. The same is directed to be paid within
four weeks from date of the present order.
38. Accordingly, the award is modified to that extent and the
petition along with pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of in
the aforementioned terms
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
SEPTEMBER 2, 2026
‘KDK’
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5018/2012 Page 11 of 11
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:03.09.2026
18:25:23