Reinstatement is not automatic upon wrongful termination; relief may be moulded as lump-sum compensation.

The respondent, a DTC Conductor confirmed in service in 1983, was alleged to have collected fare from six passengers on 29 October 1993 without issuing tickets.

He was suspended, charge-sheeted, subjected to a departmental enquiry, and removed from service on 20 October 1994 after the charges were held proved.

The respondent raised an industrial dispute. The Labour Tribunal initially held that the domestic enquiry was not fair because the management witnesses had not deposed in the respondent’s presence, and permitted the management to lead evidence.

By award dated 12 August 2010, the Tribunal directed reinstatement without back wages, with continuity of service and seniority, finding that the misconduct was not established.

During the writ proceedings, the respondent was granted wages under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, until superannuation.

Whether the Labour Tribunal’s finding that the charge of collecting fare without issuing tickets was not proved was perverse or warranted interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Whether reinstatement with continuity of service and seniority was an automatic or appropriate relief after the respondent’s removal was found unsustainable, particularly when the respondent had superannuated and had already received Section 17B wages.

The High Court applied the supervisory, non-appellate scope of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227, holding that it should not reappreciate evidence or interfere with a Labour Tribunal’s plausible findings unless they are arbitrary, perverse, or based on no relevant evidence.

In departmental proceedings, strict rules of evidence do not apply; misconduct is assessed on the preponderance-of-probabilities standard.

Relying on International Airport Authority of India v. International Air Cargo Workers Union, (2009) 13 SCC 374, the Court held that findings based on some relevant material ordinarily cannot be disturbed merely because another view is possible, although interference is permissible where findings rest on no evidence or irrelevant evidence.

The Court also relied on Mahesh Chand v. D.T.C., 2026:DHC:7889, for the principle that absence of cash verification does not, by itself, vitiate a departmental enquiry, but may assume significance where other reliable evidence is lacking.

Further, under the principle stated in Allahabad Bank v. Krishan Pal Singh, (2021) 19 SCC 227, reinstatement with full back wages is not an automatic consequence of an illegal termination, and relief may be moulded according to the nature of employment, length of service, and surrounding circumstances.

The Court held that the Tribunal’s conclusion was a plausible view supported by the evidentiary deficiencies in the management’s case.

The checking staff’s testimony was substantially uncorroborated; the respondent’s alleged signatures on the surrendered unpunched tickets did not match his admitted signature on the challan; the passenger statements did not record the amounts allegedly paid; and no other member of the checking team testified.

Although non-verification of cash was not independently fatal, it became material because the management lacked other reliable evidence proving that the passengers had actually paid fare to the respondent and that he had failed to issue tickets.

The High Court therefore declined to reassess the evidence as an appellate court and upheld the Tribunal’s finding that the misconduct was not established.

However, it held that reinstatement and continuity of service did not automatically follow. Considering the respondent’s approximately eleven years of prior service, the lapse of more than three decades, his superannuation, and the wages already paid under Section 17B, the Court considered lump-sum compensation more appropriate than reinstatement.

Nevertheless, it modified the relief of reinstatement, continuity of service, and seniority by awarding the respondent lump-sum compensation of ₹4,00,000, in view of the delay, his superannuation, and the Section 17B payments already received.

The writ petition was disposed of in those terms, with the compensation directed to be paid by the petitioner within the period specified in the order.