Illegal termination does not automatically warrant reinstatement or back wages; relief may be moulded as compensation.

The respondent was appointed as a conductor by the Delhi Transport Corporation (“DTC”) in 1972 and confirmed in 1973.

After he proceeded on medical leave, DTC checked his locker in his absence on 9 January 1987 and allegedly found shortages of tickets and money. He was suspended, charge-sheeted for misappropriation, and removed from service with effect from 29 September 1988 following a departmental enquiry.

The respondent initially pursued a civil suit, which was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and his appeal was dismissed in 2003 with liberty to pursue an industrial remedy.

The Labour Court subsequently held that the enquiry was perverse and contrary to natural justice, set aside the termination, and granted continuity of service and consequential retiral benefits up to superannuation.

DTC challenged those findings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Whether the Labour Court’s finding that the departmental enquiry was perverse, procedurally defective, and contrary to natural justice warranted interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Whether the industrial dispute was liable to be rejected on account of the respondent’s alleged delay of approximately 15 years in approaching the Labour Court.

Whether the Labour Court was justified in granting continuity of service and consequential benefits, or whether the relief should be modified because the respondent had already attained superannuation.

The Court applied the limited scope of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227, holding that an award of a Labour Court should not be reappreciated as if in appeal and may be interfered with only where findings are perverse, based on no evidence or irrelevant evidence, patently illegal, or affected by jurisdictional error.

Relying on International Airport Authority of India v. International Air Cargo Workers Union, (2009) 13 SCC 374, the Court reiterated that findings based on relevant material ordinarily cannot be disturbed merely because another view is possible.

The Court also recognised the availability of the industrial remedy under Section 10-4A of the Industrial Disputes Act and held that a litigant pursuing a bona fide but mistaken remedy may claim the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

Finally, relying on Allahabad Bank v. Krishan Pal Singh, (2021) 19 SCC 227, it held that reinstatement, continuity of service, and full back wages do not automatically follow from a finding that termination was illegal; relief must be moulded according to the circumstances, including the employee’s length of service and superannuation.

The Court found no ground to interfere with the Labour Court’s factual conclusion regarding the defective enquiry.

The locker had been opened in the respondent’s absence, without proof of prior notice, without adherence to the prescribed procedure under Para 7 of Traffic Manual No. 4, and without independent physical witnesses.

The security guard testified that no ticket deficiency had been found, while the Ticket In-charge did not establish that he had personally verified any shortage.

The absence of proof that the locker was sealed and the fact that the respondent continued working from 12 to 21 January 1987 further undermined DTC’s case.

These circumstances provided relevant material supporting the Labour Court’s conclusion that the enquiry was perverse and violative of natural justice.

The delay objection also failed because the respondent had continuously pursued civil proceedings for nearly 15 years, and DTC itself had contended in those proceedings that the proper remedy lay before the Labour Court.

However, since the respondent had already superannuated before the industrial adjudication concluded, the Court held that reinstatement and back wages were inappropriate and that the relief required modification into monetary compensation.

Nevertheless, it modified the relief because the respondent had attained superannuation and reinstatement or back wages could not appropriately be granted.

In lieu of continuity of service and consequential retiral benefits awarded by the Labour Court, DTC was directed to pay the respondent lump-sum compensation of ₹8,00,000 within four weeks.

The writ petition and pending applications were disposed of accordingly.