Plausible Labour Court findings overturning termination for medically supported absence warrant no writ interference.

The respondent-workman, a Driver employed by the Delhi Transport Corporation at Hasanpur Depot, was removed from service on 25.04.2007 for allegedly remaining unauthorisedly absent from 01.06.2006 to 03.08.2006.

He contended that his absence was due to jaundice and that he had sent medical leave applications and intimation through his neighbour and by UPC. He also alleged violation of natural justice in the domestic enquiry.

The management asserted that the workman was a habitual absentee, denied receiving any leave intimation, and relied on the domestic enquiry; alternatively, it sought permission to prove the misconduct before the Labour Court if the enquiry was invalidated.

The Labour Court framed a preliminary issue regarding the fairness of the enquiry. By order dated 20.05.2017, it held the Enquiry Officer’s findings to be perverse for failing to consider the workman’s medical records, UPC receipt, and plea of telephonic intimation, and permitted the management to prove the misconduct independently.

After recording evidence, the Labour Court by award dated 17.08.2020 held that the misconduct was not established, found the termination illegal and unjustified, and awarded lump-sum compensation of ₹5,00,000 in lieu of reinstatement and back wages.

The management challenged both orders under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Whether the Labour Court was justified in holding the domestic enquiry to be perverse and setting it aside?

Whether the management proved that the respondent’s absence was unauthorised and constituted misconduct after being permitted to lead evidence before the Labour Court?

Whether the Labour Court’s award of ₹5,00,000 as compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages warranted interference in writ jurisdiction?

The Court applied the principles governing the limited scope of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, under which the High Court does not sit as an appellate court over findings of fact but interferes where the decision is without jurisdiction, perverse, or contrary to natural justice, as stated in Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan, 1963 SCC OnLine SC 24, and reiterated in International Airport Authority of India v. International Air Cargo Workers’ Union, (2009) 13 SCC 374.

The Court also relied on Ritz Theatre Pvt. Ltd. v. Ramesh Chandra, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3633, concerning the restricted scope of writ review over Labour Court findings.

Under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, where a domestic enquiry is found defective, the management may be permitted to establish the alleged misconduct independently before the Labour Court.

The Labour Court’s assessment of evidence and relief is not to be disturbed in writ jurisdiction merely because another view may be possible, so long as its findings are supported by plausible evidence and are not perverse.

The High Court found that the Labour Court had validly concluded that the domestic enquiry was perverse because the Enquiry Officer failed to consider the workman’s OPD cards, medical prescriptions, fitness certificate, and UPC receipt, and did not investigate the plea of telephonic intimation despite the management witness admitting that such calls were recorded in a depot register.

The management was thereafter given an opportunity to prove the misconduct before the Labour Court. However, its witness admitted that the relevant depot register had not been produced and that the acknowledgment slips relating to the management’s letters, as well as the workman’s leave records, had been destroyed, although records in pending court cases were ordinarily retained.

In contrast, the workman produced contemporaneous government-hospital medical records and the UPC receipt showing dispatch of the leave intimation.

On this evidentiary record, the Labour Court’s conclusion that the management was aware of the illness and had failed to establish unauthorised absence was plausible and could not be characterised as perverse.

The compensation awarded was also considered reasonable in view of the workman’s age, long service, and the considerable lapse of time since removal.

The Court directed release of the ₹2,00,000 deposited with the Registrar General, together with accrued interest, to the respondent upon verification, and directed the management to pay the remaining ₹3,00,000 within four weeks. In default, the remaining amount would carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of the order until realization.