Non-disclosure of acquittal in minor criminal proceedings does not warrant termination or total forfeiture of back wages.

The respondent was appointed as a Driver by the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) on 13.01.2011

He was subsequently terminated on 03.12.2012 following a domestic inquiry for concealing a prior criminal case (FIR No. 679/2003 under Sections 279/338 IPC) in his Character Verification Roll (CVR), despite having been acquitted in said case on 15.07.2011

The respondent challenged his termination before the Labour Court, which, via an award dated 12.04.2018, directed his reinstatement with consequential benefits and 25% back wages

DTC reinstated the workman on 14.09.2018 but challenged the grant of back wages and consequential benefits in this writ petition

1. Whether the Labour Court erred in granting 25% back wages and consequential benefits despite holding the domestic inquiry to be fair and proper?

2. Whether the principle of "No Work No Pay" and the delay in raising the dispute disentitled the workman to any financial relief?

Clause 9(a)(i) of the DRTA (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1952, alongside internal Circulars dated 05.08.1955 and 28.08.2012, which mandate lenient punishment for non-disclosure of petty offences

The principle from J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal noting that while back wages are not automatic, they are permissible where misconduct is petty or punishment is disproportionate

The doctrine from Commissioner of Police v. Sandeep Kumar, establishing that non-disclosure of involvement in minor criminal cases (not involving moral turpitude) should not lead to termination if the candidate was acquitted

The limitation of power under Article 226 of the Constitution per Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan, limiting interference to errors of jurisdiction or perversity

The court found the petitioner's reliance on "No Work No Pay" misplaced, distinguishing J.K. Synthetics by noting that the workman's misconduct was a "frivolous or petty" non-disclosure of a minor accident case (Sections 279/338 IPC) rather than grave criminality or moral turpitude

The court observed that the DTC failed to follow its own internal circulars which suggested minor penalties (warning/censure) for such omissions

Regarding back wages, the court held that since the workman asserted unemployment and the management failed to provide evidence of gainful employment, the initial burden of proof was discharged

The court determined that the Labour Court’s decision to award only 25% back wages was a "balanced and equitable approach" rather than a perverse one

The court directed that the back wages deposited by the petitioner with the Court be released to the respondent workman along with accrued interest