D.T.C. vs Shyam Sunder

$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
nd
% Date of Decision: 02 September, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010232972003
+ W.P.(C) 3374/2003
D.T.C. .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Manisha Tyagi, Adv.
versus
SHYAM SUNDER .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Jatin Rajput, Mr. Amit
Kumar Raghav, Mr. Sandeep
Kumar, Mr. Rajendra Pratap
Singh, Mr. Varun Panwar, Mr.
Rajesh Kumar Jha, Ms. Iqra
Malik and Mr. Gaurav Tripathi,
Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India assailing order dated 22.07.2002 (hereinafter, impugned award)
passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal whereby the application filed
by the petitioner under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 was dismissed.
2. Briefly stated, the respondent workman was working as a driver
with the petitioner department. The respondent workman was issued a
charge sheet dated 18.06.1992 as he had allegedly remained absent
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3374/2003 Page 1 of 6
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR
Signing Date:03.09.2026
18:41:24

without permission from 07.05.1992 till the date of the charge sheet.
The respondent workman filed his reply dated 09.07.1992, wherein he
stated that he could not attend his duties from time to time due to his
wife’s illness and had been sending his leave applications to the
petitioner department through a colleague. He further stated that his
wife’s treatment was ongoing and requested for leave upto 08.07.1992.
The enquiry officer in view of the said reply noted that the respondent
workman admitted the charges against him and hence there was no need
for further evidence and the enquiry was concluded.
3. The disciplinary authority, keeping in view the findings of the
enquiry officer decided to remove the respondent workman from
services and issued a show cause notice dated 30.07.1992 providing an
opportunity to the respondent workman to file a written representation
against the proposed action within 10 days of receipt of the said notice.
4. The respondent workman did not reply to the said notice,
however, filed a civil suit challenging the authority and locus standi of
the disciplinary authority to issue the show cause notice dated
30.07.1992. The said suit, however, came to be dismissed on
27.02.1993. The respondent workman was removed from services vide
order dated 17.05.1993.
5. Thereafter, the petitioner department filed an application under
Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking approval
of the termination of the respondent workman on the ground of
misconduct. The learned Industrial Tribunal framed a preliminary issue
as under:
“Whether the applicant held a legal and valid enquiry against the
respondent according to principles of natural justice”
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3374/2003 Page 2 of 6
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR
Signing Date:03.09.2026
18:41:24

6. The learned Tribunal vide order dated 27.04.2001 decided the
preliminary issue against the petitioner department, noting that the
enquiry against the respondent workman stood vitiated since the
procedure adopted by the enquiry officer was faulty and the enquiry
report was perverse.
7. The petitioner department thereafter requested that it may be
given an opportunity to establish misconduct on the part of the
respondent workman before the learned Tribunal, the said request was
allowed and the following issues were framed:
“1. Whether the respondent committed the misconduct as alleged
against him in the petition filed u/s 33(2) (b) of I.D. Act? OPM.
2. Whether the full one month’s wage remitted to the respondent at
the time of his removal from service?
3. Relief.”
8. The learned Tribunal dismissed the application of the petitioner
department under Section 33 (2) (b) of the I.D. Act vide the impugned
award noting that the petitioner department failed to lead any evidence
to prove the misconduct of the respondent.
9. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition has been filed.
10. This Court allowed the application filed by the respondent
workman under Section 17B of the ID Act vide order dated 13.01.2010,
however, the said order was recalled by this Court vide order dated
21.01.2013 noting that the workman had already attained the age of
super annuation on 30.04.2003, before the said application had been
filed.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned
Tribunal has erred in dismissing the approval application filed by the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3374/2003 Page 3 of 6
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR
Signing Date:03.09.2026
18:41:24

petitioner department.
12. She submits that the workman had admittedly remained absent
from duty from 07.05.1992 till 18.06.1992, when the charge sheet was
issued to him. She submits that the past record of the workman also
shows multiple adverse entries against him, proving that he was a
habitual offender.
13. She submits that though the respondent workman in his reply
stated that he sent leave applications through a co-worker, however, he
failed to produce him before the enquiry officer or even provide is name
or address.
14. She submits that the petitioner department followed all the
principles of natural justice and thus, the learned Tribunal ought to have
allowed their approval application.
15. Per Contra , the learned counsel for the respondent workman
vehemently opposed the present petition.
16. He submits that the learned Tribunal vide order dated 27.04.2001
held that the enquiry against the respondent stood vitiated and accorded
an opportunity to the petitioner department to lead their evidence to
show misconduct of the respondent. He submits that the said order was
never challenged by the petitioner department and they only produced
one witness before the learned Tribunal, who, only proved that the
respondent workman was paid one full month’s wage at the time of
removal from service.
17. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.
18. At the outset, it is necessary to note that the scope of interference
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with an Award
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3374/2003 Page 4 of 6
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR
Signing Date:03.09.2026
18:41:24

passed by the Industrial Tribunal is limited. Interference is warranted
only where the Award suffers from patent illegality, perversity or an
error apparent on the face of the record. The present Petition does not
invite this Court to re-appreciate the evidence or disturb findings of fact
but is confined to examining the legality and propriety of the relief
granted by the Industrial Tribunal.
19. Adverting to the merits of the present case, the learned Tribunal
vide order dated 27.04.2001 held that the enquiry proceedings against
the respondent workman stood vitiated and granted opportunity to the
petitioner department to lead evidence before the learned Tribunal to
prove misconduct against the respondent workman.
20. The said order was admittedly never challenged by the petitioner
department. Even otherwise, a perusal of the record clearly shows that
the respondent workman had though admitted remaining absent from
his duties, he had also furnished an explanation of his wife suffering
from illness, due to which he could not attend his duties. Further, the
respondent workman had also stated that he had sent leave applications
to the petitioner department through a co-worker. In view of the said
reply of the workman, the enquiry officer erroneously recorded that the
workman had admitted the charges against him and no further evidence
was required. Further, the learned Tribunal has also observed that the
enquiry officer has relied on certain documents of the management
without affording an opportunity to the workman to explain himself. In
view of the same, the observations of the learned Tribunal in order dated
21.04.2001 cannot be faulted.
21. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner department, even after
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3374/2003 Page 5 of 6
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR
Signing Date:03.09.2026
18:41:24

being afforded the opportunity to lead evidence before the learned
Tribunal to prove the misconduct of the workman, failed to produce any
evidence in that regard. Thus, in the opinion of this Court the learned
Tribunal rightly held that the petitioner department failed to prove
misconduct against the respondent workman and rightly dismissed the
approval application filed by the petitioner department.
22. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
considered view that the present petition, having been filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not warrant interference
with the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal. The view
taken by the learned Tribunal is a plausible view based on the material
placed before it. No perversity, patent illegality, or jurisdictional error
is discernible in the impugned order so as to warrant exercise of the
extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court.
23. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
24. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
SEPTEMBER 2, 2026
‘KDK’
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3374/2003 Page 6 of 6
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR
Signing Date:03.09.2026
18:41:24