Procedural irregularities or non-appointment of a presenting officer do not vitiate domestic enquiry absent demonstrated prejudice.

The Respondent, a conductor with the Petitioner (DTC) since 1985, was apprehended by checking staff on 16.10.2003 for possessing counterfeit/duplicate ticket blocks of ₹5 and ₹10 denominations

Following an FIR and departmental inquiry, he was removed from service on 12.12.2006

By an interlocutory order dated 28.10.2009, the Labour Court held the domestic inquiry was vitiated because no Labour Welfare Officer (LWO) or Presenting Officer (PO) was appointed

Subsequently, after hearing evidence on merits, the Labour Court passed an Award on 02.12.2010, holding that the management failed to prove misconduct as it relied on a solitary witness and failed to produce original documents (which were in police custody)

The Petitioner challenged both the interlocutory order and the final Award under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution

1. Whether the Labour Court was justified in holding the domestic enquiry vitiated due to the absence of a Labour Welfare Officer and a Presenting Officer?

2. Whether the Labour Court erred in concluding that the management failed to prove misconduct on merits after leading evidence before the Court?

3. Whether the findings of the Labour Court warrant interference under the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court?

The Court applied the principle that departmental circulars regarding the presence of a Labour Welfare Officer are directory "rules of prudence" and not mandatory statutory requirements (Ramesh Chand v. DTC)

The Court relied on the doctrine that the absence of a Presenting Officer does not vitiate an inquiry unless prejudice is demonstrated (Union of India v. Ram Lakhan Sharma; DTC v. Hanumant Kumar)

Regarding evidence, the Court applied the "preponderance of probabilities" standard, noting that the strict Indian Evidence Act, 1872, does not apply to industrial adjudication (Bhavnagar Municipal Corp. v. JadejaGovubhaChhanubha; KSRTC v. Lakshmidevamma)

The Court further applied the rule that a solitary witness's credible testimony is sufficient proof (Banaras Electric Light & Power Co. Ltd. v. Labour Court II)

The Court further applied the "loss of confidence" doctrine in cases of financial irregularities (Janatha Bazar v. Secretary, SahakariNoukurara Sangha)

The High Court found the Labour Court’s decision to vitiate the inquiry legally unsustainable, as procedural irregularities only invalidate an inquiry if they cause "real prejudice," which the Respondent failed to show

The Respondent had participated in the inquiry and cross-examined witnesses, signifying substantial compliance with natural justice

Regarding the merits, the Court held the Labour Court adopted an "unduly technical approach" by rejecting the management's case for non-production of original documents, despite the management explaining they were in police custody—an explanation not disputed by the Respondent

The Court observed that in industrial disputes, "some evidence" with a reasonable nexus to the charge is sufficient

The testimony of the checking staff (MW-1) was consistent and unshaken, and the Labour Court’s doubt regarding the presence of a second conductor was dismissed as mere conjecture

Consequently, the High Court determined the misconduct was proved on a preponderance of probabilities

The Court held that the domestic inquiry was valid and the misconduct was established on merits

Given the financial nature of the misconduct (forged tickets), the Court ruled that the "loss of confidence" made reinstatement unwarranted

The Court directed that any payments made to the Respondent under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, are non-recoverable and shall be treated as final, but the Respondent is entitled to no further service or retiral benefits