Dismissal was confirmed after the Labour Court upheld the fair enquiry and misconduct finding.

The Corporation appointed the workman as a driver-cum-conductor in 2007.

Following an allegation that he had misappropriated ₹1,71,360 collected from daily passes between 2009 and 2011, a departmental enquiry was held.

The Enquiry Officer found the charges proved, and the Corporation dismissed the workman on 3 January 2015.

The workman challenged the dismissal under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The Labour Court found the domestic enquiry fair and proper, held that the workman had not established his innocence, and found the enquiry report not perverse.

It nevertheless set aside the dismissal and directed reinstatement, while denying back wages.

The Corporation petitioned against the reinstatement and the workman petitioned against the denial of back wages.

During the writ proceedings, the workman was reinstated under an interim order and was later dismissed following a separate departmental enquiry in 2023.

1. Whether the Labour Court was justified in interfering with the dismissal despite finding that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper and that the enquiry report was not perverse.

2. Whether the workman was entitled to back wages after the Labour Court ordered reinstatement.

The Court identified Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution as the basis for its writ jurisdiction and Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as the provision under which the workman had raised the industrial dispute.

The judgment does not set out a general legal test for reviewing the Labour Court’s exercise of its powers; its decision rests on the inconsistency between the Labour Court’s findings on the enquiry and its decision to interfere with the dismissal.

The Labour Court had accepted that the enquiry was fair, rejected the workman’s claim of innocence, and found that the Enquiry Officer’s report was not perverse.

The High Court considered those findings inconsistent with the Labour Court’s decision to set aside the dismissal and held that the intervention in the punishment required reconsideration.

It also noted the workman’s subsequent dismissal following a separate enquiry, but gave no detailed analysis of how that event affected either petition.

The Court did not separately explain its reasoning on the back-wages claim.

It dismissed the workman’s petition challenging the denial of back wages.