W.P.(C) 3183/2011 Page 1 of 32

$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 10.02.2026

Date of decision: 13.04.2026

Uploaded on: 13.04.2026

+ W.P.(C) 3183/2011

DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Uday N. Tiwari, Adv.

versus

HARISH CHANDRA .....Respondent

Through: Mr. M.P. Sinha, Mr. Satyam Mishra

and Ms. VhavyaRazshree, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN

JUDGMENT

SHAIL JAIN, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, Delhi

Transport Corporation, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of

India, assailing the order dated 28.10.2009 (hereinafter referred to as the

Impugned Order) and the Award dated 02.12.2010 (hereinafter referred to as

the Impugned Award) passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour

Court, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, in DID No. 01/2008.

BRIEF FACTS:

2. The brief factual matrix, as borne out from the record, is that the

respondent/workman, Harish Chandra (hereinafter referred to as the

Respondent), was employed as a Conductor with the petitioner, Delhi

W.P.(C) 3183/2011 Page 2 of 32

Transport Corporation (DTC), since the year 1985 and was posted at

Shriniwaspuri Depot, bearing Badge No. 22659.

3. On 16.10.2003, while the Respondent was performing his duties as a

Conductor in Bus No. 6467 on Route No. 518/9, the bus was checked by the

checking staff of the petitioner Corporation at the Hazrat Nizamuddin

Railway Station Bus Stand at about 13:05 hours. During the inspection of

the waybill and ticket blocks, it was allegedly found that the Respondent

was in possession of certain ticket blocks of denominations of ₹5 and ₹10,

bearing specific serial numbers, which were alleged to be

counterfeit/duplicate in nature.

4. As per the checking report prepared by the checking staff, it was

alleged that the Respondent possessed:

(i) a ticket block of denomination ₹5 bearing numbers 448-82164 to

82199, which were alleged to be counterfeit, whereas genuine tickets of

the same block series 448-82161 to 82199 were also available; and

(ii) ticket blocks of denomination ₹10 bearing numbers 483-11755 to

11799 and 483-11770 to 11799, which were stated to be bogus,

whereas genuine tickets of the same series11760 to 11799 were also

found.

5. Pursuant to the said incident, the Respondent was taken to the

headquarters, and FIR No. 104/2003 was registered at Police Station Hazrat

Nizamuddin Railway Station on same day under Sections 420, 468 and 471

IPC. The Respondent remained in judicial custody from 16.10.2003 to

30.10.2003.

W.P.(C) 3183/2011 Page 3 of 32

6. The respondent/workman was placed under suspension vide order

dated 17.10.2003, pending initiation and conclusion of disciplinary

proceedings arising out of the alleged incident.

7. Thereafter, a charge sheet dated 24.02.2005 was issued by the

petitioner/management alleging misconduct under Rule 19(b), (f), (h) and

(m) of the DTC (Conduct) Rules, primarily on the ground of possession of

forged/bogus ticket blocks causing financial loss to the Corporation. The

Respondent submitted his reply to the charge sheet denying the allegations.

Not being satisfied with the explanation furnished, the management initiated

departmental disciplinary proceedings against the Respondent.

8. The enquiry proceedings were conducted initially by Ms. Sunita

Chauhan and subsequently by Sh. Sushil Jacob on various dates between

08.04.2005 and 29.03.2006. During the course of the enquiry, the

management examined witnesses, including members of the checking staff.

The Respondent participated in the enquiry proceedings and cross-examined

the witnesses produced by the management. Upon completion of the enquiry

proceedings, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 25.04.2006,

holding that the charges against the Respondent stood proved.

9. Based on the findings recorded in the enquiry report, the management

issued a show cause notice dated 13.10.2006 proposing the penalty of

removal from service. The Respondent submitted his reply to the said

notice; however, the disciplinary authority was not satisfied with the

explanation offered. Consequently, the management passed an order dated

12.12.2006, whereby the Respondent was removed from service.

W.P.(C) 3183/2011 Page 4 of 32

10. Aggrieved thereby, the Respondent raised an industrial dispute,

registered as DID No. 01/2008 before the Labour Court, Karkardooma

Courts, Delhi.

11. During the course of the proceedings, the Labour Court first

considered the issue relating to the validity of the domestic enquiry and, by

order dated 28.10.2009, held that the enquiry conducted by the management

was not fair and proper. The management was thereafter granted an

opportunity to lead evidence before the Court to establish the alleged

misconduct on merits.

12. Upon appreciation of the evidence produced by both the parties, the

Labour Court, by the Impugned Award dated 02.12.2010, came to the

conclusion that the management had failed to prove the charges levelled

against the Respondent/workman and consequently directed his

reinstatement in service, though without back wages.

13. Aggrieved by the order dated 28.10.2009 and the Impugned Award

dated 02.12.2010, the petitioner/management has filed the present writ

petition before this Court under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution Of

India. During the pendency of the present writ petition, the Respondent filed

an application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(Hereinafter, referred as ID Act,1947). By order dated 29.03.2012, this

Court directed the petitioner/management to pay the Respondent either his

last drawn wages or the minimum wages, whichever is higher, from the date

of the Impugned Award till the disposal of the present petition.

14. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

W.P.(C) 3183/2011 Page 5 of 32

14.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner/management submitted that the

Labour Court erred in holding that the domestic enquiry was not fair and

proper. It was contended that the finding that the enquiry stood vitiated on

account of the absence of a Labour Welfare Officer and a Presenting Officer

is contrary to settled principles governing disciplinary proceedings. It was

submitted that departmental instructions regarding the presence of a Labour

Welfare Officer are directory in nature, and their non-compliance does not,

by itself, vitiate the enquiry. Reliance was placed on Ramesh Chand v.

Delhi Transport Corporation,2007 SCC OnLine Del 858.

14.2 It was further submitted that the record of the enquiry proceedings

demonstrates that the respondent/workman was offered the assistance of a

co-worker or Labour Welfare Officer, which he declined, and thereafter

participated in the proceedings, including cross-examination of witnesses. It

was contended that, in such circumstances, no prejudice was caused and the

enquiry could not have been held to be vitiated.

14.3 Learned counsel also submitted that there is no mandatory

requirement for appointment of a Presenting Officer in every departmental

enquiry, and that the absence of a Presenting Officer does not vitiate the

proceedings in the absence of demonstrated prejudice. Reliance was placed

on Union of India v. Ram Lakhan Sharma (2018) 7 SCC 670 ; DTC v.

Hanumant Singh, W.P.(C) 717/2011 ; DTC v. Kishori Lal, 2013 SCC

OnLine Del 669, and DTC v. Rajpal &Anr, W.P.(C) 6218/2001.

14.4 On merits, it was submitted that the Labour Court erred in holding

that the misconduct was not proved despite granting the management an

opportunity to lead evidence. It was contended that the Labour Court

adopted an unduly technical approach in discarding the management’s case

W.P.(C) 3183/2011 Page 6 of 32

on the ground that the original documents were not produced, particularly

when the witness had deposed that the same were in police custody. It was

further submitted that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to

proceedings before the Labour Court, and reliance could be placed on

relevant material even in the absence of formal proof. In this regard, reliance

was placed on Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation&Ors v.

JadejaGovubhaChhanubha, (2014) 16 SCC 130 and Karnataka State

Road Transport Corporation v. Lakshmidevamma (Smt) &Anr, (2001) 5

SCC 433.

14.5 Learned counsel also contended that the Labour Court erred in

discarding the testimony of MW-1 merely on the ground that he was the sole

witness, as there is no rule that the testimony of a solitary witness cannot be

relied upon if it is otherwise credible. Reliance was placed on Banaras

Electric Light & Power Co. Ltd. v. Labour Court II (1974) 3 SCC 103. It

was further submitted that the Labour Court failed to consider material

aspects of the evidence, including the alleged admission of the respondent

during the enquiry proceedings, and that the respondent did not lead any

rebuttal evidence.

14.6 On the aforesaid grounds, it was contended that the Labour Court

erred both in holding the domestic enquiry to be vitiated and in concluding

that the misconduct was not proved.

15. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

15.1. Learned counsel for the respondent/workman submitted that the

impugned order dated 28.10.2009 and the Award dated 02.12.2010 do not

W.P.(C) 3183/2011 Page 7 of 32

suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference under Articles

226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

15.2 It was contended that the Labour Court rightly held the domestic

enquiry to be vitiated, having regard to the non-compliance with the office

memorandum dated 13.10.1965, which required the presence of a Labour

Welfare Officer during enquiry proceedings, as well as the absence of a

Presenting Officer. Reliance was placed on DTC v. Maha Singh W.P.(C)

2228/2004 to contend that such requirements were mandatory.

15.3 On merits, it was submitted that, after granting opportunity to the

management to lead evidence, the Labour Court correctly concluded that the

misconduct was not proved. The management examined only one witness

(MW-1), and failed to produce the original documents forming the basis of

the charge or to examine other members of the checking staff. It was further

submitted that the material on record indicated the presence of another

conductor on duty, whose role was not explained, thereby creating doubt as

to the allegations. In these circumstances, the Labour Court rightly held that

the sole uncorroborated testimony of MW-1 was insufficient to establish the

charge.

15.4 Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent/workman was

acquitted in the criminal proceedings arising out of the same incident. It was

also submitted that, during the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent

was paid wages under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in

terms of the order dated 29.03.2012, which continued till he attained the age

of superannuation. It was contended that the respondent is entitled to the

benefits flowing from the Award, subject to adjustment of the amounts

received under Section 17-B, ID Act, 1947.

W.P.(C) 3183/2011 Page 8 of 32

16. Issues for Consideration

In light of the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and the

material placed on record, the following issues arise for consideration before

this Court:

I. Whether the Labour Court was justified in holding, vide order dated

28.10.2009, that the domestic enquiry conducted by the

petitioner/management was not fair and proper and consequently stood

vitiated?

II. Whether the Labour Court was correct in concluding, in the impugned

Award dated 02.12.2010, that the petitioner/management failed to

prove the alleged misconduct against the respondent/workman after

leading evidence before the Court?

III. Whether the impugned order dated 28.10.2009 and the Award dated

02.12.2010 passed by the Labour Court warrant interference by this

Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India?

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

17. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material

placed on record, this Court proceeds to examine the present writ petition.

At the outset, it is well settled that the jurisdiction of this Court under

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is supervisory in nature and

not appellate. This Court does not sit in appeal over the findings returned by

the Labour Court, nor does it undertake a re-appreciation of evidence or

substitute its own conclusions on facts. It is equally well settled that

interference with findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court is warranted

W.P.(C) 3183/2011 Page 9 of 32

only where such findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or suffer from

jurisdictional error, patent illegality, or a manifest misapplication of settled

legal principles. So long as the findings recorded by the Labour Court are

based on a reasonable appreciation of evidence and are not perverse, no

interference is called for merely because another view may also be possible.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently reiterated these principles. It is

in the aforesaid limited scope of jurisdiction that the present issues are

required to be examined.

18. At the outset, it may be noted that the present writ petition arises from

two findings forming part of the same adjudicatory process. Issue No. 1,

relating to the validity of the domestic enquiry, was decided by order dated

28.10.2009, whereas Issue No. 2, concerning the merits of the charges and

legality of termination, was adjudicated in the impugned Award dated

02.12.2010. Thus, both findings, though rendered at different stages, form

part of the overall Award and are subject to examination in the present writ

petition.

19. Insofar as Issue No. 1 is concerned, the petitioner has assailed the

Impugned Order dated 28.10.2009 passed by the Labour Court, whereby the

domestic enquiry conducted by the petitioner/management was held to be

unfair and improper, primarily on the ground that the enquiry proceedings

were conducted without the presence of a Labour Welfare Officer and a

Presenting Officer. The operative portion of the said order reads as under:

“4.The office memorandum dated 13.10.1965 issued by the

AGM (Admn.) bearing No. Admi.-21(73)/64 makes it

mandatory that in charge-sheet cases where dismissal from

service is proposed, the presence of a Labour Officer or

Labour Welfare Officer should be arranged during the

W.P.(C) 3183/2011 Page 10 of 32

course of the oral enquiry to watch the interest of the

employee.

5.Learned AR for the management submits that an offer

was made to the workman which he declined. Mere offering

by the management is not sufficient as per the circular. It is

for the management to have made such arrangements

mandatorily. It is in this context one should understand the

need of appointing a Presenting Officer. Though the rules of

DTC do not provide for appointing the Presenting Officer,

the Hon’ble High Court in DTC v. Maha Singh, W.P. No.

2228/1994 (decided on 28.04.2005) noted that non-

appointment is an irregularity.

6.In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that

the enquiry conducted by the management cannot be

treated as fair, proper and valid Thus, I pass the following

order :

ORDER

The enquiry issue is held in favour of the workman and

against the management.”

20. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Labour Court held the

enquiry to be vitiated on procedural grounds. The Labour Court proceeded

on the basis that the office memorandum dated 13.10.1965 imposed a

mandatory requirement to ensure the presence of a Labour Welfare Officer,

and further observed that the absence of a Presenting Officer affected the

fairness of the enquiry. On this reasoning, it concluded that the enquiry was

not fair, proper or valid, and accordingly decided the preliminary issue in

favour of the workman.

21. As regards Issue No. 1 decided by the impugned order dated

28.10.2009 this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, confines its examination to the limited question as to

whether the Labour Court was justified in holding the domestic enquiry to

be vitiated on account of the aforesaid procedural grounds, namely, (i) non-

W.P.(C) 3183/2011 Page 11 of 32

presence of a Labour Welfare Officer and (ii) non-appointment of a

Presenting Officer. It is clarified that this Court is not examining the merits

of the charges, the sufficiency of evidence, or any other aspect of the

enquiry, and the consideration herein is restricted only to the aforesaid

procedural grounds, while considering the validity of domestic enquiry.

22. The contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the finding of

the Labour Court is contrary to settled law, inasmuch as departmental

instructions are in the nature of guidelines and not mandatory, and that the

absence of a Presenting Officer, in the absence of any demonstrated

prejudice or denial of fair opportunity, does not vitiate the enquiry. This

contention now falls for consideration.

23. Examining the aforesaid contention, this Court is of the view that the

finding of the Labour Court that the domestic enquiry stood vitiated is

legally unsustainable. The Labour Court proceeded on the premise that the

presence of a Labour Welfare Officer and the appointment of a Presenting

Officer were mandatory, and that their absence, by itself, rendered the

enquiry defective. Such an approach is contrary to settled law, as it treats

procedural requirements as determinative without examining whether any

prejudice was caused to the workman. It is well settled that a domestic

enquiry cannot be invalidated on mere procedural irregularities unless it is

shown that such deviation has resulted in denial of a fair opportunity or has

caused real prejudice to the delinquent employee; the governing test being

whether the enquiry, viewed as a whole, was fair and in accordance with the

principles of natural justice.

24. It is well settled that a domestic enquiry need not conform to the strict

procedural framework of judicial proceedings; it is sufficient if the

W.P.(C) 3183/2011 Page 12 of 32

principles of natural justice are observed, namely, that the workman is

informed of the charges, afforded a reasonable opportunity to defend

himself, permitted to participate in the proceedings including cross-

examination of witnesses, and that the enquiry is conducted fairly by an

impartial authority.

25. In this context, the approach of the Labour Court in treating the office

memorandum dated 13.10.1965 as imposing a mandatory requirement

cannot be sustained. The said memorandum, being an internal administrative

instruction regulating disciplinary proceedings, does not have the force of a

statutory rule. Its non-compliance, therefore, does not ipso facto vitiate the

enquiry, unless it is shown that such deviation has resulted in denial of a fair

opportunity or has caused real prejudice to the delinquent employee which

fact has neither been claimed nor proved by the workman.

26. In support of the aforesaid position, reference may be made to

Ramesh Chand v. Delhi Transport Corporation, ILR (2008) I Delhi 21:

2007 SCC OnLine Del 858, wherein this Court held that departmental

circulars are in the nature of rules of prudence and not mandatory directions,

and that their non-compliance does not, by itself, vitiate the enquiry. It was

further observed that where the workman is afforded an opportunity to take

assistance but declines the same and participates in the enquiry, including by

cross-examining witnesses, no violation of the principles of natural justice

can be made out. The Court observed as under:

“6. We have considered all the submissions in the light of

the records. So far as the first ground taken before us which

pertains to violation of the mandates of the circular dated

12.12.1973 is concerned, a similar issue was raised before

us in the LPA No. 2290/2006 titled as Dharam Pal v. Delhi

W.P.(C) 3183/2011 Page 13 of 32

Transport Corporation. In the said case also, the aforesaid

contention was rejected. Such a contention was also a

subject matter of consideration before this Court in writ

petition being CWP No. 1420/2002 title as DTC v. Shyam

Singh &Anr., The said writ petition was disposed of by

judgment and order dated 29th September, 2004 and the

Court held as under:

"Reliance placed by the learned Tribunal on the

circular dated 12th February, 1973 is also

misplaced. The circular requires the Enquiry

Officer to ask a delinquent, on each date of the

proceedings, whether he needs the assistance of

any other workman. This circular merely

incorporate a rule of prudence and not a

mandatory direction, non- compliance of which

would invalidate an inquiry. In a case such as the

present, the respondent-workman, a literate

conductor refused to take the assistance of a co-

worker in the very first hearing. This being the

position, the Enquiry Officer cannot be expected

to ask him in every hearing whether he requires

the assistance of any other worker. "

7. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the aforesaid

contention raised by the counsel appearing for the

appellant. Even otherwise on perusal of the records, we find

that the appellant was given the opportunity to engage a

defence assistant and the said opportunity was refused by

the appellant stating that he would himself cross-examine

the witnesses. In fact, the records indicate that he had

himself cross-examined the witnesses produced. Therefore,

the aforesaid contention raised regarding denial of

opportunity is misconceived and is rejected.”

[ Emphasis supplied]

27. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, it is

evident that the Labour Court erred in treating procedural aspects as

determinative without examining whether any prejudice was caused to the

W.P.(C) 3183/2011 Page 14 of 32

workman. The record shows that the workman was informed of the charges

and afforded a full and effective opportunity to participate in the enquiry,

including cross-examining the management witnesses and presenting his

defence. He was also given an opportunity to avail the assistance of a co-

worker or Labour Welfare Officer, on each day of enquiry which he

declined. In such circumstances, where the opportunity was available but not

availed, no prejudice can be said to have been caused. The enquiry

proceedings thus reflect substantial compliance with the principles of natural

justice.

28. The Labour Court has further held the enquiry to be defective on

account of the non-appointment of a Presenting Officer, which requires

examination in light of the settled legal position. The mere non-appointment

of a Presenting Officer does not, by itself, vitiate a departmental enquiry,

particularly where no such requirement is prescribed by the applicable rules.

The validity of the enquiry is to be tested on the touchstone of fairness and

compliance with the principles of natural justice, and not on the basis of

procedural formalities in isolation.

29. In Union of India v. Ram Lakhan Sharma, (2018) 7 SCC 670, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the issue of non-appointment of

a Presenting Officer in departmental enquiries, held that there is no

requirement of appointing a Presenting Officer in each and every case,

whether the statutory rules provide for it or are silent. It was further

observed that the principles of natural justice are to be applied having regard

to the facts of each case, and are not to be construed in a rigid or straitjacket

manner. The Court held as under :

W.P.(C) 3183/2011 Page 15 of 32

“34. We fully endorse the principles as enumerated above,

however, the principles have to be carefully applied in fact

situation of a particular case. There is no requirement of

appointment of Presenting Officer in each and every case,

whether statutory rules enable the authorities to make an

appointment or are silent. When the statutory rules are

silent with regard to the applicability of any facet of

principles of natural justice the applicability of principles of

natural justice which are not specifically excluded in the

statutory scheme are not prohibited. When there is no

express exclusion of particular principle of natural justice,

the said principle shall be applicable in a given case to

advance the cause of justice.”

30. A similar position has been reiterated by this Court in Delhi

Transport Corporation v. Hanumant Kumar, W.P.(C) 717/2011 decided on

17.01.2013, wherein a challenge to a domestic enquiry, inter alia, on the

ground of non-appointment of a Presenting Officer and absence of a Labour

Welfare Officer, was considered. Upon examining the governing legal

principles, this Court held that the mere absence of a Presenting Officer does

not vitiate a departmental enquiry, and that the party alleging violation of the

principles of natural justice must demonstrate the prejudice caused thereby.

It was further observed that where the workman is afforded an effective

opportunity to participate in the enquiry proceedings, including cross-

examination of witnesses and presentation of his defence, no violation of

natural justice can be made out merely on account of such absence. The

Court observed as under:

“7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that

the reason that no welfare officer was asked to participate

in the proceedings is not good because the respondent had

himself refused, when offered to avail of any defence

representative. He further submits that the admission made

W.P.(C) 3183/2011 Page 16 of 32

by the respondent was clear, and there is no basis to

conclude that there is no clear cut admission of guilt made

and recorded in the evidence led by the respondent, or in his

cross examination. He further submits that it is not

necessary that a presenting officer should have been

appointed for the conduct of the inquiry. The same is merely

a rule of prudence and not a mandatory direction, non-

compliance of which would invalidate an inquiry.

In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of this

Court in Mahavir Singh Vs. DTC, 2007 (139) DLT 569. In

this case, the workmen impugned the conduct of the

departmental inquiry, inter alia, on the ground that no

presenting officer had been appointed by the department,

which vitiated the entire inquiry. Rejecting the submission,

this Court observed that there is no rule that an inquiry

cannot proceed without a Presenting Officer. The Court

further observed:

“The witness can depose before an inquiry officer

of their own, without the help of a presenting

officer. There is no violation of principles of

natural justice, if no presenting officer is

appointed or present. If a request of allowing

presenting officer or defence assistance is

declined by the inquiry officer without just cause,

a grievance can be made. The party who alleges

violation of principles of natural justice has to

show how his/her case got prejudiced by alleged

violation. Petitioner has failed to show how non

appointment of presenting officer prejudiced his

case.”

xxxxxxxxx

10. Similarly, the Karnataka High Court in Bharat

Electronics Ltd. vs. K. Kasi, (1987) ILR NULL 366: (1987)

IILLJ 203 Kant, took the view that there is no legal

compulsion that the Presenting Officer should be

appointed. It was observed that the mere fact that the

presenting officer was not appointed is no ground to set

W.P.(C) 3183/2011 Page 17 of 32

aside the Inquiry. Commenting upon the role of the Inquiry

Officer, it observed that it is common ground that if the

Inquiring Authority plays the role of a Prosecutor and

cross-examines the defence witnesses or puts leading

questions to the prosecution witnesses clearly exposing a

biased state of mind, the inquiry would be opposed to

principles of natural justice. However, it is also well settled

that an Inquiring Authority is entitled to put questions to the

witnesses for clarification wherever it becomes necessary

and so long as the delinquent employee is permitted to cross

examine the witnesses after the Inquiry Authority questions

the witnesses, the inquiry proceedings cannot be impeached

as unfair.”

[Emphasis supplied]

It was further observed that the mere absence of a Presenting Officer

does not vitiate the enquiry, so long as the delinquent has a fair opportunity

to deal with the material on record. It is, however, well settled that the

enquiry may stand vitiated if the Enquiry Officer assumes the role of a

prosecutor; no such circumstance is made out in the present case.

31. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, it is

evident that the Labour Court erred in treating the non-appointment of a

Presenting Officer as fatal to the enquiry without examining whether any

prejudice had been caused to the workman. The record indicates that the

workman was duly informed of the charges and was afforded a full and

effective opportunity to participate in the enquiry proceedings, including

cross-examination of the management witnesses and presentation of his

defence. The enquiry proceedings thus reflect substantial compliance with

the requirements of natural justice.

32. Significantly, the Labour Court has not recorded any finding that the

alleged procedural lapses resulted in prejudice to the workman or deprived

W.P.(C) 3183/2011 Page 18 of 32

him of a fair opportunity of defence. In the absence of such demonstrable

prejudice, the enquiry cannot be held to be vitiated.

33. The Labour Court has placed reliance on Delhi Transport

Corporation v. Maha Singh, W.P.(C) No. 2228/2004 decided on

28.04.2005 (incorrectly noted in the impugned order as W.P.(C) No.

2228/94), to hold that non-appointment of a Presenting Officer constitutes

an irregularity vitiating the enquiry. Such reliance is misplaced. The said

decision does not lay down any absolute proposition that absence of a

Presenting Officer, by itself, vitiates a departmental enquiry. On the

contrary, the legal position stands clarified by this Court in DTC v.

Hanumant Kumar (supra) wherein it was observed:

“13. In view of the aforementioned observations of the

Supreme Court as also the consistent view taken by the

Various High Courts thereafter, the observations made in

the case of DTC vs. Maha Singh, W.P.(C) No. 2228/2004

(wrongly written as W.P.(C) 2228/94 in the impugned

award) decided on 28.04.2005, appear to be per incurium.

The position that emerges from the aforesaid discussion is

that the mere absence of a presenting officer representing

the management does not vitiate the departmental

proceedings. The Inquiry Officer is appointed by the

Disciplinary Authority only to hold a fact finding inquiry in

compliance of principles of natural justice, and to make a

report on the basis of the said inquiry. He is not the

Disciplinary Authority or the Punishing Authority.”

34. The aforesaid clarification squarely applies to the present case, where

the enquiry proceedings demonstrate fairness and no prejudice has been

shown to have been caused to the workman.

35. This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that the Labour Court

erred in treating the procedural deviations as determinative without

W.P.(C) 3183/2011 Page 19 of 32

examining whether such deviations resulted in any real prejudice to the

workman or violated the principles of natural justice.

36. Accordingly, the order dated 28.10.2009 holding the enquiry to be

vitiated cannot be sustained in law.

37. Having set aside the above discussed finding, this Court now proceeds

to examine Issue No. 2, namely, whether the conclusion recorded by the

Labour Court in the impugned Award dated 02.12.2010, that the

petitioner/management failed to establish the alleged misconduct against the

respondent/workman, can be sustained in law.

38. It is not in dispute that, upon the Labour Court holding the domestic

enquiry to be vitiated, an opportunity was granted to the management to

adduce evidence to establish the charges on merits. The said course was in

consonance with the settled principles governing industrial adjudication as

applicable at that stage. However, the findings returned by the Labour Court

upon appreciation of such evidence now fall for examination by this Court

to determine whether they can be sustained in law, or whether they suffer

from perversity, misapplication of settled legal principles, or a failure to

consider material evidence on record.

39. In support of its case, the management examined MW-1, Shri

Yashpal, Assistant Traffic Inspector, who deposed that, during checking, the

respondent/workman was found in possession of ticket blocks of ₹5 and ₹10

denominations bearing identical or repeated serial numbers. He further

stated that the said tickets were seized and the original documents were

forwarded to the vigilance department, pursuant to which FIR No. 104/2003

was registered.

W.P.(C) 3183/2011 Page 20 of 32

40. The workman, on the other hand, contended that the charge was not

established, primarily on the ground that the original documents were not

produced before the Labour Court and that the evidence led by the

management was insufficient to prove the misconduct.

41. Upon appreciation of the material on record, the Labour Court

rejected the case of the management, primarily on the following reasoning:

1. “MW-1 who deposed that the conductor possessed

duplicate/counterfeit/forged tickets of Rs.5/- and 10/-

denomination did not produce the original of those tickets

before this Court

2. The management takes umbrage under the factthat

original documents are with the police who have

investigated the matter. The same were not summoned and

proved before this Court.

3. The original reports prepared by MW1 are not tendered

nor the same have been corroborated by examining the

other checking staff who had testified to report at Ex. Ma.

Mark-Ma is further signed by other ATIs who were not

examined.

4. However, the reading of Mark-Ma shows there were two

conductors in the said bus. The badge number of first

conductor is 20629 which was found to be correct during

the checking. The badge number of the claimant conductor

is 22659. This conductor was taken by the checking staff to

the HO. The role of the other conductor is not spoken to by

the witness before this court though it is stated so in Mark

Ma. This creates a doubting cloud over the misconduct

alleged to pin point this workman.

5. The sole testimony of MW-1, bereft of documentary

evidence, to prove the misconduct. insufficient”

42. On the aforesaid reasoning, the Labour Court held that the misconduct

alleged against the workman was not proved and consequently directed

reinstatement without back wages. The operative portion reads as under:

W.P.(C) 3183/2011 Page 21 of 32

“…..10. For the aforesaid reasons, though the workman has

not led any rebuttal evidence, I am of the considered view

that the misconduct alleged against the workman is not

proved to the hilt before this Court, nor even to probabilise

the misconduct. Consequently, I hold that the workman is

entitled to reinstatement.

11.I have gone through the claim statement. The workman

has pleaded that he remained unemployed for no fault of his

and that he was unable to secure alternate employment.

However, there is no positive assertion in the claim

statement that he made efforts to find alternate employment.

Furthermore, considering the peculiar facts of the case

where the misconduct has been disbelieved for lack of

evidence, I am of the considered view that the workman is

not entitled to any back wages.

12.In the result, I find that the workman is entitled to

reinstatement without back wages. The management is

directed to reinstate the workman within 30 days after

publication of the Award. The reference is answered

accordingly. Let the requisite number of copies of this

award be sent to appropriate government for publication.

File be consigned to record room”

[Emphasis supplied]

43. The aforesaid reasoning reflects that the Labour Court proceeded to

discard the case of the management primarily on account of non-production

of original documents, absence of corroborative evidence, and reliance on a

solitary witness.

44. This Court is unable to sustain the approach adopted by the Labour

Court in setting aside the case of the management on account of non-

production of original documents, as it is unsustainable in law. The record

indicates that the management had furnished an explanation for non-

production of the original documents. It is also material to note that the

explanation furnished by the management that the original documents were

W.P.(C) 3183/2011 Page 22 of 32

in police custody was neither disputed nor discredited in cross-examination.

In the absence of any challenge to such explanation, the Labour Court could

not have drawn an adverse inference against the management merely on

account of non-production of the original documents.

45. It is a settled position of law that strict rules of evidence, as embodied

under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, are not applicable to proceedings

before the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal. Such proceedings are guided

by the principles of natural justice, and the standard of proof is that of

preponderance of probabilities. What is required is that there must be some

material on record on the basis of which the Labour Court can reasonably

arrive at a conclusion, and not that the charge must be proved in accordance

with the technical rules of admissibility applicable to civil or criminal trials.

46. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, it is

evident from the record that MW-1 had clearly deposed that the original

documents, including the ticket blocks, were in the custody of the police in

connection with the criminal proceedings arising out of the same incident. In

such circumstances, the inability of the management to produce the originals

stood duly explained. The Labour Court was, therefore, required to assess

the evidentiary value of the material available on record on its own merits,

including the oral testimony and the documents produced, instead of

rejecting the same on the ground that the originals were not produced or

formally proved.

47. It is also necessary to note that the absence of original documents, by

itself, does not render the entire evidence unreliable, particularly where the

oral testimony remains consistent, unshaken, and is supported by

W.P.(C) 3183/2011 Page 23 of 32

surrounding circumstances. The evidentiary value of such material cannot be

disregarded solely on this ground.

48. In this regard, reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation &Ors. v.

JadejaGovubhaChhanubha&Anr, (2014) 16 SCC 130, wherein it was

observed that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to proceedings

before the Labour Court, and that even a xerox copy of a document, if

admitted on record and not objected to, can be relied upon. The Hon’ble

Supreme Court held that once such material is brought on record, its

evidentiary value has to be appreciated on the touchstone of overall material

available, and cannot be discarded merely on the ground that the original

document was not produced. The relevant observations are as under:

“The Labour Court has, in the case at hand, placed reliance

upon a xerox copy of a certificate allegedly issued by an

officer of the appellant Corporation stating that the

respondent was in the employment of the appellant

Corporation as a Conductor between 3-10-1987 and 31-3-

1989. While it is true that the xerox copy may not be

evidence by itself specially when the respondent had stated

that the original was with him, but had chosen not to

produce the same yet the fact remains that the document

was allowed to be marked at the trial and signature of the

officer issuing the certificate by another officer who was

examined by the appellant. Strict rules of evidence, it is

fairly well-settled, are not applicable to the proceedings

before the Labour Court. That being so the admission of

the xerox copy of the certificate, without any objection from

the appellant Corporation, cannot be faulted at this belated

stage.”

[Emphasis supplied]

W.P.(C) 3183/2011 Page 24 of 32

49. In Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v.

Lakshmidevamma (Smt) &Anr., (2001) 5 SCC 433, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court reiterated that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to

proceedings before the Labour Court/Tribunal and that such forums are

required to act on the material brought on record in order to meet the ends of

justice, subject to observance of principles of natural justice. The relevant

observations are as under:

“45. It is consistently held and accepted that strict rules of

evidence are not applicable to the proceedings before the

Labour Court/Tribunal but essentially the rules of natural

justice are to be observed in such proceedings. Labour

Courts/Tribunals have the power to call for any evidence at

any stage of the proceedings if the facts and circumstances

of the case demand the same to meet the ends of justice in a

given situation. We reiterate that in order to avoid

unnecessary delay and multiplicity of proceedings, the

management has to seek leave of the court/tribunal in the

written statement itself to lead additional evidence to

support its action in the alternative and without prejudice to

its rights and contentions. But this should not be

understood as placing fetters on the powers of the

court/tribunal requiring or directing parties to lead

additional evidence including production of documents at

any stage of the proceedings before they are concluded if

on facts and circumstances of the case it is deemed just

and necessary in the interest of justice.”

The said principle applies to the present case, where the Labour Court failed

to evaluate the material available on record on its own merits and rejected

the management’s case on the ground of non-production of original

documents.Admittedly, neither the workman nor the Labour Court had

asked for production of original documents at any stage of the proceedings.

W.P.(C) 3183/2011 Page 25 of 32

If MW-1 would have failed to produce the original documents by

summoning any witness or otherwise, then an adverse inference could be

drawn against the management, but in the absence of any such request of

the workman or direction by the Labour Court, no adverse inference could

be drawn against the management for non-production of any original

documents.

50. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, the approach adopted

by the Labour Court in rejecting the evidence of the management on the

ground of non-production of original documents reflects a misapplication of

the principles governing appreciation of evidence in industrial adjudication.

The said reasoning is legally untenable, as it proceeds on the erroneous

assumption that production of original documents is indispensable even in

industrial adjudication. The impugned finding, therefore, cannot be

sustained.

51. This Court further finds that the Labour Court erred in holding that

the misconduct was not proved on the ground that the case of the

management rested on the sole testimony of MW-1 and was not corroborated

by other members of the checking staff. It is a settled position of law that

there is no rule of evidence which mandates that the testimony of a solitary

witness cannot be relied upon, provided the same is found to be credible.The

evidentiary value of a solitary witness depends upon its intrinsic credibility,

consistency, and absence of material contradictions, all of which stand

satisfied in the present case.

52. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Banaras Electric Light & Power Co.

Ltd. v. Labour Court II, (1974) 3 SCC 103, has held that there is no rule of

evidence which mandates that the testimony of a solitary witness cannot be

W.P.(C) 3183/2011 Page 26 of 32

relied upon, so long as the same is found to be credible and acceptable. The

said principle applies to the present case, where the Labour Court discarded

the testimony of MW-1 solely on the ground that it was not corroborated by

other members of the checking team, despite the testimony remaining

unshaken and no rebuttal evidence having been led by the workman.

53. In the present case, the testimony of MW-1, who was part of the

checking team, clearly establishes that the respondent/workman was found

in possession of ticket blocks bearing duplicate serial numbers. The

testimony of MW-1 establishes:

(i) recovery of ticket blocks from the possession of the workman,

(ii) existence of duplicate serial numbers, and

(iii) seizure during checking.

Significantly, the cross-examination of MW-1 does not disclose any material

contradiction, nor was any suggestion put that the alleged recovery was

fabricated or that the workman was falsely implicated. The testimony thus

remains consistent and undisputed.

54. It is well settled that in industrial adjudication, the requirement is only

of ‘some evidence’ on the basis of which a reasonable conclusion can be

drawn, and not proof to the standard required in criminal proceedings. In

Indian Overseas Bank v. I.O.B. Staff Canteen Worker’s Union &Anr

(2000) 4 SCC 245 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that findings of fact

cannot be interfered with so long as they are based on some material on

record. Similarly, in State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh, (1977) 2 SCC 491,

it has been held that strict rules of evidence do not apply in domestic and

industrial proceedings and the sufficiency of evidence is not to be

scrutinised as in a criminal trial, so long as the material has a reasonable

nexus with the charge.

W.P.(C) 3183/2011 Page 27 of 32

55. However, the present case is not one where the Labour Court has

returned findings on appreciation of such material, but one where relevant

evidence has been discarded on legally untenable grounds.

56. In the present case, the evidence of MW-1, coupled with the

surrounding circumstances on record, clearly establishes a direct nexus with

the charge. However, the Labour Court has failed to appreciate such material

and has instead disregarded relevant evidence on legally untenable

grounds.This is not a case where the Labour Court has taken a possible view

on the basis of appreciation of evidence; rather, it is a case where relevant

evidence has been discarded on legally untenable grounds, thereby rendering

the findings perverse and amenable to interference under Article 226.

57. A perusal of the record further indicates that, in the course of the

departmental enquiry, the management witnesses were examined in detail

and subjected to cross-examination by the respondent/workman. The

proceedings thus demonstrate that full opportunity was afforded to test the

credibility of the witnesses, yet nothing material emerged to discredit their

testimony, either in the enquiry or before the Labour Court.

58. It is significant to note that, as recorded by the Labour Court itself, the

workman did not lead any rebuttal evidence. In such circumstances, the

testimony of MW-1 could not have been discarded merely on the ground that

other members of the checking team were not examined.

59. The insistence on corroboration, in the absence of any material to

discredit the testimony of the management witness, reflects a misapplication

of the settled principles governing appreciation of evidence and cannot be

sustained in law. Corroboration, it is well settled, isnot a rule of law but of

prudence.

W.P.(C) 3183/2011 Page 28 of 32

60. The Labour Court has erred in raising a doubt on the ground that

another conductor was present in the bus. The enquiry record clearly shows

that two conductors were on duty, namely the respondent/workman bearing

Badge No. 22659 and another conductor bearing Badge No. 20629, both

identifiable by their respective badge numbers. The material on record

further indicates that the other conductor was found to be in order and was

allowed to continue with duty, whereas the respondent/workman was

specifically found in possession of the irregular ticket blocks and was taken

for further proceedings. The mere presence of another conductor does not

dilute the case against the respondent, particularly when the testimony of

MW-1 and other members of the checking staff consistently implicates him.

The Labour Court, in extending the benefit of doubt on this basis, has

proceeded on conjecture despite cogent material on record, especially when

no such question was put to the MW-1 and thus no opportunity was given to

MW-1 to explain these circumstances. Although these questions were put by

the workman to all the witnesses of the management in the enquiry, and they

have given the same cogent reply. Even the other conductor was asked the

same questions by the workman, and he explained the facts. Such an

approach is contrary to the settled principles governing appreciation of

evidence in industrial adjudication, where the matter is to be assessed on the

touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and not by applying a standard

akin to criminal proceedings.

61. The Labour Court has thus discarded relevant evidence on untenable

grounds and misapplied the settled principles governing appreciation of

evidence in industrial adjudication, rendering its findings perverse.

W.P.(C) 3183/2011 Page 29 of 32

62. In the backdrop of the above discussion, the evidentiary material on

record warrants a conclusion on the issue of misconduct.

63. When the aforesaid circumstances are cumulatively considered on the

touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, the material on record

leaves no manner of doubt that the misconduct alleged against the

respondent/workman stands established.

64. Once misconduct stands established on the material on record, the

consequential impact on the relationship of trust between the employer and

the employee necessarily falls for consideration. The nature of the

misconduct, involving handling of ticketing revenue and financial integrity,

strikes at the core of the fiduciary trust reposed in the workman. The

doctrine of loss of confidence, therefore, assumes particular significance in

cases where the employee is entrusted with duties involving handling of

fares and financial transactions, as in the case of a bus conductor. This

assumes greater importance where the employer is a public transport

undertaking dealing with public funds and discharging a public function,

thereby requiring a high degree of integrity and trustworthiness from its

employees. Once such confidence stands shaken on account of proved

misconduct involving financial irregularities, the employer cannot be

compelled to continue the relationship of employment.

65. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Janatha Bazar (South Kanara

Central Cooperative Wholesale Stores Ltd.) &Ors v. Secretary,

SahakariNoukarara Sangha &Ors., (2000) 7 SCC 517, has categorically

held that in cases of proved misappropriation or breach of trust, there is no

question of showing misplaced sympathy on the ground of long service or

the quantum involved, and reinstatement would be wholly unjustified.

W.P.(C) 3183/2011 Page 30 of 32

Similarly, in Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) v. A.T. Mane,

(2005) 3 SCC 254, it has been held that where an employee is found guilty

of misappropriating the employer’s money, the employer is justified in

losing confidence in such an employee and in imposing the punishment of

dismissal.

66. In the present case, the misconduct pertains to possession and use of

forged ticket blocks, directly impacting the financial integrity of the

petitioner/management and constituting a clear breach of trust in the

discharge of official duties. Such conduct undermines the employer’s

confidence in the respondent/workman. In these circumstances, the direction

of reinstatement granted by the Labour Court cannot be sustained, as the

relationship of trust essential to such employment stands irretrievably

damaged.

67. The reliance placed by the respondent on his acquittal in the criminal

proceedings arising out of the same incident is misplaced. It is well settled

that criminal proceedings and disciplinary or industrial adjudication operate

in distinct fields, having different objectives and standards of proof. In State

of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena, (1996) 6 SCC 417, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court has held that the standard of proof, the mode of enquiry, and the rules

governing the proceedings in the two cases are entirely distinct and

different. . Further, in Nelson Motis v. Union of India, (1992) 4 SCC 711, it

has been held that an order of acquittal does not conclude departmental

proceedings. An acquittal in criminal proceeding, therefore, does not ipso

facto absolve the workman of misconduct in industrial adjudication,

particularly where such acquittal is based on insufficiency of evidence and

not an honourable exoneration.

W.P.(C) 3183/2011 Page 31 of 32

68. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court is of the considered view that the

Labour Court has:

(i) applied an incorrect standard of proof,

(ii) discarded relevant evidence on legally untenable grounds, and

(iii) failed to appreciate the material on record in accordance with

settled principles governing industrial adjudication.

69. The contentions advanced on behalf of the respondent/workman,

founded on non-production of original documents, absence of corroboration,

and alleged insufficiency of evidence, do not merit acceptance.

70. The findings returned on Issue No. 2 are, therefore, perverse and

unsustainable in law.

CONCLUSION:

71. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the

finding of the Labour Court holding the domestic enquiry to be vitiated

cannot be sustained. The grounds relied upon by the Labour Court, including

the alleged absence of a Labour Welfare Officer and Presenting Officer, do

not vitiate the enquiry in the facts of the present case. The said finding is,

accordingly, set aside.

72. Once the finding on the enquiry issue is set aside, and the material on

record is independently examined, the findings returned by the Labour Court

on Issue No. 2 are also unsustainable in law, as the Labour Court has

failed to appreciate the material on record in accordance with settled

principles governing industrial adjudication and has thereby returned

findings which are vitiated by perversity and cannot be sustained in law.

73. The impugned Award dated 02.12.2010 is set aside.

W.P.(C) 3183/2011 Page 32 of 32

74. Having regard to the nature of duties entrusted to the

respondent/workman and the misconduct established, reinstatement is not

warranted.

75. Any amounts paid to the respondent/workman pursuant to orders

passed under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 shall not be

recovered and shall be treated as final. The respondent/workman shall not be

entitled to any further monetary, service, retiral or consequential benefits

flowing from the impugned Award.

76. The writ petition stands allowed in the above terms. Pending

applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

SHAIL JAIN

JUDGE

APRIL 13, 2026

RM