W.P.(C) 5535/2006 & W.P.(C) 2551/2006 Page 1 of 19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment reserved on:24.07.2026

Judgment pronounced on:08.09.2026

Judgment uploaded on:08.09.2026

# CNR No. DLHC010735882006

+ W.P.(C) 5535/2006

BANWARI SINGH RANA .....Petitioner

versus

MANGT. OF M/S ASHOK HOTEL & ANR. ..... Respondents

# CNR No. DLHC010721272006

+ W.P.(C) 2551/2006

THE MANAGEMENT OF ASHOK HOTEL .....Petitioner

versus

ALL INDIA ITDC MAZDOOR JANTA U ..... Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner : Mr. Karan Luthra and Mr. Rohan Dua,

Advs. in W.P.(C)5535/2006.

Mr. Rajeev Goyal, Mr. Anshul Misra and

Ms. Rashi Agarwal, Advs. in W.P.(C)

2551/2006.

W.P.(C) 5535/2006 & W.P.(C) 2551/2006 Page 2 of 19

For the Respondents : Mr. Rajeev Goyal, Mr. Anshul Misra and

Ms. Rashi Agarwal, Advs. in W.P.(C)

5535/2006.

Mr. Karan Luthra and Mr. Rohan Dua, Advs.

in W.P.(C)2551/2006.

CORAM

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

JUDGMENT

1. The present cross petitions are filed assailing order dated

07.02.2005 (hereinafter ‘impugned order’) passed by the learned

Labour Court in I.D. No. 543/96 whereby Shri Banwari Singh was

directed to be reinstated into service without back wages or continuity

of service.

2.Briefly stated, Shri Banwari Singh was appointed on a

temporary post of Tandoori Cook at Airport Hotel, Calcutta on

29.01.1975. Subsequently, Shri Banwari Singh was transferred and

posted at Frontier Restaurant in Ashok Hotel as Chef De Parte.

Thereafter, a complaint was filed against Shri Banwari Singh and 23

other employees by the then Senior Chef, Ashok Hotel vide letter

dated 02.07.1993 regarding unauthorised absence.

3.The management of Ashok Hotel issued a charge sheet dated

04.09.1993 against Shri Banwari Singh under Rule 4(4.1)(vi) and

4(4.1)(xi) of the Indian Tourism Development Corporation Conduct

Discipline & Appeal Rules, 1978. Pursuant to the departmental

W.P.(C) 5535/2006 & W.P.(C) 2551/2006 Page 3 of 19

enquiry, Shri Banwari Singh was removed from services as he had

remained unauthorisedly absent for a period of about 500 days. Shri

Banwari Singh preferred an appeal against his termination before the

Vice President (H), however, the same was rejected vide order dated

25.05.1995.

4. Aggrieved thereby, Shri Banwari Singh and All India ITDC

Mazdoor Janta Union filed a claim petition before the Assistant

Labour Commissioner & Conciliation Officer and thereafter, the same

was sent to the learned Labour Court vide Reference No. F

24(1545)/96-Lab/35926-30 dated 01.07.1996.

5.The learned Labour Court vide order dated 31.07.2004 observed

that the enquiry in the present case had been undertaken by an

individual who was not an employee of Ashoka Hotel, which was in

violation of Section 16(iii) of the Certified Standing Order and hence

the enquiry against the workman stood vitiated.

6.The learned Labour Court vide the impugned order further

noted that the enquiry against Shri Banwari Lal had been held illegal

vide order dated 31.07.2004 only on a technical ground and he had

admitted the charges for remaining absent for more than a year

without any intimation or permission. Thus, the learned Tribunal

concluded that the workman had committed a grave misconduct which

could not be awarded in any manner by awarding back wages or

continuity of service and directed simple reinstatement in favour of

Shri Banwari Lal.

W.P.(C) 5535/2006 & W.P.(C) 2551/2006 Page 4 of 19

7.Aggrieved thereby, the present cross petitions have been filed.

The challenge in W.P(C) 5535/2006 is limited to denial of back wages

to the workman.

8.This Court vide order dated 19.05.2023 noted that the workman

expired on 13.11.2015 and allowed the application for impleadment of

his LRs.

9.The learned counsel for the workman (Petitioner in W.P(C)

5535/2006) submitted that the learned Labour Court has erred in

failing to grant back wages to the workman.

10.He submitted that the learned Labour Court conclusively held

that the termination of the workman was illegal and that the

management failed to prove that the workman was gainfully employed

during the period of termination, thus, he ought to have been granted

back wages from the date of his illegal termination.

11.He submitted that the learned Labour Court erred in denying

back wages to the workman by observing that his termination was

held to be illegal only on a technical ground. He submitted that the

enquiry officer in the workman’s enquiry not being authorised to

conduct an enquiry under the Standing Orders completely vitiates the

proceedings and renders it wholly without jurisdiction and the same

cannot be held to be a mere “technical ground”. In this regard reliance

has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in

Central Bank of Inida v. C. Bernard : (1991) 1 SCC 319.

W.P.(C) 5535/2006 & W.P.(C) 2551/2006 Page 5 of 19

12.He submitted that even if the charge of un-authorised absence

against the workman stood proved, the punishment awarded for the

same is wholly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. He

submitted that similarly placed employees, namely Sh. Yash Pal and

Smt. Mehak Singh, who were also named in the complaint dated

02.07.1993 for the same allegation of unauthorised absence, were not

terminated but were instead issued caution/warning letters or had

increments stopped. He submitted that the same makes it evident that

the management adopted a discriminatory approach against the

workman in the present case.

13.He submitted that the learned Labour Court while denying back

wages to the workman erroneously relied upon the alleged admission

of the workman, which formed part of the inquiry proceedings. He

submitted that once the learned Labour Court found the inquiry

proceedings to have been vitiated, it was no longer open to the learned

Labour Court to place reliance upon any part of those proceedings. In

this regard reliance has been placed upon the judgment in Workmen

of Motipur Sugar Factory Pvt. Ltd. vs The Motipur Sugar Factory :

AIR 1965 SC 1803 and Phulbari Tea Estate vs Workmen : AIR 1959

SC 1111.

14.He submitted that the learned Labour Court has rightly placed

reliance upon the judgments in Central Bank of India v. C. Bernard :

(1991) 1 SCC 319 and Hotel Kanishka v. Delhi Administration

: 1 LIJ 1996 to observe that in absence of any rules in the standing

W.P.(C) 5535/2006 & W.P.(C) 2551/2006 Page 6 of 19

order that the enquiry officer can be from anywhere, the same has to

be from the department and cannot be an outsider.

15. The learned counsel for the management (respondent in

W.P(C) 5535/2006 and petitioner in W.P.(C) 2551/2006) submitted

that the learned Labour Court has erred in granting reinstatement to

the workman. He submitted that the learned Labour Court has

erroneously observed that the enquiry proceedings stood vitiated as

the same had been in violation of Section 16(iii) of the Certified

Standing Orders.

16.He submitted that Section 16(iii) of the Certified Standing

Orders does not mandate that the enquiry against an employee ought

to be held by an officer of the employer, rather it only mandated that

the enquiry officer not be an officer who is lower in rank to the

accused.

17.He submitted that the reliance placed by the learned Labour

Court upon the judgment of this Court in Hotel Kanishka v. Delhi

Administration : 59 (1995) DLT553,in order to determine that the

enquiry was not held by a proper officer as per the standing orders in

the present case, is misplaced. He submitted that the aforesaid

judgment can be distinguished from the facts of the present case. He

submitted that in Hotel Kanishka (supra), the relevant standing order

provided for an enquiry to be conducted by an officer/ employee of the

Hotel/Corporation, who should not be lower in rank than the accused,

while in the present case the standing order only provides that an

W.P.(C) 5535/2006 & W.P.(C) 2551/2006 Page 7 of 19

enquiry shall be held by an officer/employer not lower in status than

the accused.

18.He submitted that the reliance placed upon the judgment in

Central Bank of India v. C. Bernard (supra) is misplaced and the

same can be distinguished on facts.

19.He submitted that the standing order in the present case does not

expressly provide that the officer holding the inquiry ought to be an

employee of the Hotel and the term ‘officer’ has not been defined in

the standing orders. He submitted that in view of the same, the learned

Labour Court could not have construed Section 16(iii) of the standing

order to mean that the inquiry ought to be conducted by “an officer of

the company”. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the

judgment of the the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in Capstan Meters

(India) Ltd. v. The Judge Labour Court : 1991 (2) WLN417.

20.He submitted that Shri Hardan Lal was engaged by India

Tourism Development Corporation (ITDC) on retainership basis for

conducting inquiries into departmental cases with the status equivalent

to an officer in the scale of pay of Rs. 1500-2000/-, and has produced

office order dated 30.07.1996 to support the same. He has further

produced an LTC final settlement form issued by ITDC, Unit: Ashoka

Hotel, wherein Shri Banwari Singh has mentioned his scale of pay as

Rs.1350-2325. Thus, he submits that Shri Hardan Lal being an officer

appointed by the General Manager of Ashoka Hotel and having being

engaged by ITDC for conducting enquiries was at a higher pay scale

W.P.(C) 5535/2006 & W.P.(C) 2551/2006 Page 8 of 19

than the workman at the time of enquiry and therefore, would

indisputably be a proper officer to conduct the enquiry in terms of the

standing order.

21.He submitted that Shri Hardan Lal was also appointed as the

inquiry officer in other cases as well by the General Manager of

Ashoka Hotel and has produced appointment letters dated 28.06.1989

and 15.07.2000 to support the same.

22.He submitted that no prejudice has been caused to the workman

due to his enquiry having been undertaken by an outsider, as the

charge of being on un-authorised leave for a period of 500 days was

never contested by the workman. He submitted that the workman

admitted the said charge only with the caveat that his absence was due

to family disputes and marital problems, which caused him mental

distress, while failing to lead any evidence in this regard.

23.He submitted that the plea of the workman regarding the

management being discriminatory towards him by terminating him is

wrong and misconceived. He submitted that the workman has failed to

plead as to how his case was similar to that of Mehak Singh and Yash

Pal. He submitted that Mehak Singh had remained absent for a period

of 114 days and Yashpal had remained absent for a period of 118

days, while the workman in the present case was on un-authorised

leave for a period of 500 days.

W.P.(C) 5535/2006 & W.P.(C) 2551/2006 Page 9 of 19

24.He submitted that the workman has not led any evidence to

prove that he remained unemployed during the relevant period and

thus, the relief of back wages cannot be granted to him.

25.I have heard the arguments and perused the record.

26.At the outset, it is necessary to note that the scope of

interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India

with an Award passed by the Labour Court is limited. This Court does

not sit as a Court of appeal over findings of fact rendered by the

Labour Court. Interference is warranted only where the findings are

perverse, based on no evidence, suffer from patent illegality, or

disclose a jurisdictional error. Reference in this regard may be made to

the judgment in International Airport Authority of India v.

International Air Cargo Workers Union :(2009) 13 SCC 374 where

the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:

“47. It is true that in exercising the writ jurisdiction, the High

Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings and award of the

Industrial Tribunal and therefore, cannot reappreciate evidence.

The findings of fact recorded by a fact-finding authority should

ordinarily be considered as final. The findings of the Tribunal

should not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction merely on the

ground that the material on which the Tribunal had acted was

insufficient or not credible.

48. It is also true that as long as the findings of fact are based on

some materials which are relevant, findings may not be interfered

with merely because another view is also possible. But where the

Tribunal records findings on no evidence or irrelevant evidence, it

is certainly open to the High Court to interfere with the award of

the Industrial Tribunal.”

W.P.(C) 5535/2006 & W.P.(C) 2551/2006 Page 10 of 19

27.In the present case, the learned Labour Court held the inquiry in

the present case to have been vitiated for having violated Section 16

(iii) of the Certified Standing Order, which provides as under:

“III. An employee against whom an enquiry has to be held shall be

given a chargesheet clearly setting forth the charges against him

indicating therein the nature of offence as laid down in any of the

sub-sections of Section 14 above and the full particulars thereof.

The charge-sheet will invariably end up by calling upon the

employee to give his explanation in writing by a stipulated date. If

his reply is not considered satisfactory by the departmental head

concerned an enquiry shall be held by an officer/employer not

lower in status than the accused. During the enquiry…….”

28.Section 16(iii) of the Standing Orders provides that an

employee against whom an enquiry is to be held shall be taken up by

an officer/employer who is not lower in status than the accused

employee. The learned Labour Court has construed the provision to

mean that such officer must be an employee of the

Corporation/Department and must not be lower in rank or status than

the accused. Though the Management contends that Section 16(iii)

does not expressly stipulate that the officer must be an employee of

the Corporation, this contention, in the opinion of this Court, cannot

be accepted.

29.The expression “officer/employer” has to be understood in the

context of the Standing Orders governing the service conditions of the

Corporation's employees. The reference to an “officer”, particularly

when read with the requirement that such officer must not be lower in

status than the accused, necessarily contemplates a person holding a

position within the organisational hierarchy of the employer. The

W.P.(C) 5535/2006 & W.P.(C) 2551/2006 Page 11 of 19

requirement of relative status would have little meaning if the Enquiry

Officer were to be an outsider to the Corporation.

30.Thus, although Section 16(iii) does not expressly state that the

Enquiry Officer must be an employee of the Corporation, such

requirement necessarily follows from the language and scheme of the

provision. The learned Labour Court was, therefore, justified in

holding that the “officer” contemplated under Section 16(iii) must be

an officer/employee of the Corporation.

31.Having decided that the “officer” contemplated under Section

16(iii) must be an officer/employee of the Corporation, the question

that arises is whether Shri Hardam Lal, who was the appointed enquiry

officer in the present case, can be regarded as an officer of the

Corporation.

32.The Management has produced the Office Order dated

02.07.1986, whereby Shri Hardam Lal was engaged by ITDC on

retainership basis for conducting enquiries in departmental cases. The

said Office Order further stipulates that he would enjoy the status

equivalent to that of an officer in the scale of pay of ₹1,500-2,000/-.

The relevant extract of the said Office Order is reproduced

hereinbelow:

“Shri Hardam Lal resident of 4D/57, Rajendra Nagar(Old), New

Delhi-110060, Phone: 5711999 has been engaged by ITDC on

retainership basis with immediate effect for conducting enquiries in

the departmental cases. Sh. Hardam Lal will enjoy status

equivalent to an officer in the scale of pay of Rs.1500-2000/- He

W.P.(C) 5535/2006 & W.P.(C) 2551/2006 Page 12 of 19

will be entitled to payment of a retainership fee of Rs.325/- per

enquiry, and reimbursement of conveyence expenses at the rate of

Rs.30/- per sitting.”

(emphasis supplied)

33.The Management has also produced the Office Orders dated

28.06.1989 and 15.07.2000, whereby Shri Hardam Lal was appointed

as the Enquiry Officer in two other cases of misconduct by the

General Manager of Ashoka Hotel. Further, in the present case itself,

Shri Hardam Lal was appointed as the Enquiry Officer by the Resident

Manager, Ashoka Hotel, vide order dated 28.10.1993.

34.In the opinion of this Court, the mere description of a person as

enjoying a status equivalent to that of an officer, or the conferment of

a notional scale of pay, cannot by itself make such person an officer of

the Corporation.

35.In the present case, the Office Order dated 02.07.1986 itself

records that Shri Hardam Lal was engaged “on retainership basis” for

conducting departmental enquiries and was to be paid a retainership

fee of ₹325/- per enquiry, besides conveyance expenses. Thus, his

engagement was specifically for the limited purpose of conducting

departmental enquiries and did not constitute an appointment to any

office or post under the Corporation. The mere stipulation that he

would enjoy a status equivalent to that of an officer cannot, in the

opinion of this Court, alter the nature of his engagement or make him

an officer/employee of the Corporation for the purposes of Section

16(iii).

W.P.(C) 5535/2006 & W.P.(C) 2551/2006 Page 13 of 19

36.Reliance in this regard may be placed upon the judgment of a

Division Bench of this Court in Hotel Kanishka v. Delhi

Administration & Ors.:1995 SCC OnLine Del 321. In the said case,

the Division Bench was considering an identical provision contained

in Standing Order 16(iii), which required the enquiry to be conducted

by an “officer/employee of the Hotel/Corporation not lower than the

accused”. The Enquiry Officer therein had, like Shri Hardam Lal in

the present case, been engaged on a retainership basis for conducting

departmental enquiries and was accorded a status equivalent to that of

an officer in the scale of ₹1,500–2,000/-. The Division Bench

nevertheless observed that such engagement did not make him an

officer/employee of the Corporation. The relevant observations are

reproduced hereinbelow:

“5. In order to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for

the appellant, it is necessary to reproduce Para 16(iii) of the

Standing Orders, which admittedly is the provision applicable to

the facts and circumstances of the present case:

“16. Procedure for dealing with cases of misconduct”

x x x

(iii) An employee against whom an enquiry has to be held shall be

given a charge-sheet clearly setting forth the charges against him

indicating therein nature of the offence as laid down in any of the

sub-clauses of Cl. 14 above and the full particulars thereof. The

chargesheet will invariably end up by calling upon the employee to

give his explanation in writing by a stipulated date. If his reply is

not considered satisfactory by the management or if no reply is

received within stipulated time or any extension thereof, an enquiry

shall be held by an officer/employee of the Hotel/Corporation not

lower than the accused.

6. In this connection it is also necessary to refer to the office order

appointing Sri S.P.S. Ahluwalia for conducting the enquiry in

departmental cases, which according to the learned counsel for the

W.P.(C) 5535/2006 & W.P.(C) 2551/2006 Page 14 of 19

appellant is his appointment order appointing him as an

officer/employee of the Hotel/Corporation.

“Sri S.P.S. Ahluwalia has been engaged on retainership basis with

effect from 23 May 1984 for conducting enquiries in the

departmental cases. He will enjoy status equivalent to an officer in

the scale of Rs. 1500-2000.

Sd/-

(P.C. ARORA)

Deputy General Manager (E)”

7. From a bare perusal of the aforesaid provision of Para. 16(iii)

of the Standing Orders it is apparent that the disciplinary enquiry

against a workman is required to be conducted by an

officer/employee of the Hotel/Corporal ion, who also should not be

lower than the accused (workman).

8. Now the question that is to be determined is whether Sri S.P.S.

Ahluwalia, who was appointed as the enquiry officer in the present

case was an officer/employee of the Hotel/Corporation and not

lower than the workman. From the aforesaid appointment order it

cannot be said that Sri S.P.S. Ahluwalia, the enquiry officer was an

officer of the Corporation. The aforesaid appointment order

categorically states that he is engaged on retainership basis for

conducting enquiries enjoying the status equivalent to an officer in

the scale of Rs. 1500-2000. Although in terms of the aforesaid

order the enquiry officer was enjoying the status equivalent to an

officer in the scale of Rs. 1500-2000, he was himself not appointed

to the said scale but was engaged on retainership basis only. That

being the position it cannot be held that Sri S.P.S. Ahluwalia was

an employee/officer of the Corporation. The source of power of

appointment of an enquiry officer being the Standing Order which

categorically lays down that he must be an officer employee of the

Corporation/Hotel not lower than the employees against whom an

enquiry is to be held, no other person than an officer/employee of

the Corporation/Hotel could function as an enquiry officer in

disciplinary proceedings conducted against any workman of the

Corporation/Hotel.

9. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order challenged

before us, we find that the learned Single Judge has considered the

provisions of the Standing Order 16(iii) and also the order

appointing Sri Ahluwalia for conducting enquiries in departmental

W.P.(C) 5535/2006 & W.P.(C) 2551/2006 Page 15 of 19

cases and on consideration of the same has come to a categorical

finding that Sri Ahluwalia was not an officer/employee of the

Corporation and accordingly in terms of the Standing Order No.

16(iii) he was not entitled to conduct an enquiry. In coming to the

aforesaid conclusion the learned Single Judge also considered the

decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Central Bank of India

[1991 (1) L.L.N. 1111] (vide supra), relied upon by the learned

Counsel for the appellant and came to the conclusion that in the

facts and circumstances of the present case the ratio of the said

decision is not applicable inasmuch as the present case stands on a

different footing, as in the present case one is faced with a

Standing Order which has the force of law.

10. On careful consideration of the findings and the decision

arrived at by the learned Single Judge we find that the decision

arrived at by him does not suffer from any infirmity and is based on

reasons and proper appreciation of the provisions of the Standing

Orders, and the order of appointment of Sri S.PS. Ahluwalia as the

enquiry officer.”

(emphasis supplied)

37.The Office Order dated 02.07.1986 records that Shri Hardam

Lal was engaged on a retainership basis for conducting departmental

enquiries and that he would enjoy a status equivalent to that of an

officer in the scale of ₹1,500–2,000/-. As in Hotel Kanishka (supra),

the fact that he was accorded a status equivalent to that of an officer

does not alter the nature of his engagement. He was not appointed to

the said scale or to any office under the Corporation.

38.The subsequent orders appointing Shri Hardam Lal as an

Enquiry Officer in other cases, also do not alter the aforesaid position.

Such appointments merely show that his services were utilised by the

Management for conducting departmental enquiries and have no

bearing on whether he otherwise satisfied the requirement of being an

W.P.(C) 5535/2006 & W.P.(C) 2551/2006 Page 16 of 19

officer of the Corporation under Section 16(iii) of the Standing

Orders.

39.In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no infirmity in the

conclusion of the learned Labour Court that the enquiry conducted

against the workman was in violation of Section 16(iii) of the

Standing Orders and, consequently, stood vitiated. The termination of

the workman, being founded upon such enquiry, is therefore rendered

illegal.

40.The next question that arises is with regard to the relief to which

the workman would be entitled. The learned Labour Court, while

holding the enquiry to be vitiated, noted that the workman had

admitted the charges levelled against him during the enquiry and had

merely sought a lenient view on account of family disputes and the

resultant mental distress. The learned Labour Court, therefore,

declined to grant full back wages or continuity of service and confined

the relief to simple reinstatement.

41.It is, however, pertinent to note that the workman had already

attained the age of superannuation, in 2004, before the award came to

be passed and, consequently, the relief of reinstatement was no longer

capable of being granted. Thereafter, as noted above, the workman

expired on 13.11.2015.

42.The learned counsel for the workman has contended that once

the enquiry against the workman stood vitiated, the learned Labour

Court ought not to have considered the records of the said enquiry and

W.P.(C) 5535/2006 & W.P.(C) 2551/2006 Page 17 of 19

denied the workman back wages and continuity of service. Be that as

it may, the mere finding that the termination was illegal does not, by

itself, confer an automatic right to reinstatement or back wages. The

relief to be granted is required to be moulded having regard to the

facts and circumstances of each case.

43.It is trite law that a finding of illegality in termination does not,

by itself, mandate reinstatement and full back wages in every case.

The Hon’ble Apex Court has repeatedly held that reinstatement is not

an automatic or mechanical consequence of an order of termination

being held illegal and that the relief must be moulded having regard to

the nature of employment, length of service and the surrounding

circumstances of the case. In Allahabad Bank v. Krishan Pal Singh :

(2021) 19 SCC 227, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that

reinstatement with full back wages is not automatic in every case

where termination or dismissal is found to be not in accordance with

the procedure prescribed under law and that the relief can be moulded

depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. The relevant

extract of the same is reproduced hereinbelow:

“8. The directions issued by the High Court of Allahabad for

reinstatement were stayed by this Court on 23-8-2019 [Allahabad

Bank v. Krishan Pal Singh, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 2061] . During

the pendency of these proceedings, the respondent workman had

attained age of superannuation. Though, there was strong

suspicion, there was no acceptable evidence on record for

dismissal of the workman. However, as the workman has worked

only for a period of about six years and he has already attained the

age of superannuation, it is a fit case for modification of the relief

granted by the High Court. The reinstatement with full back wages

is not automatic in every case, where termination/dismissal is

W.P.(C) 5535/2006 & W.P.(C) 2551/2006 Page 18 of 19

found to be not in accordance with procedure prescribed under

law. Considering that the respondent was in effective service of the

Bank only for about six years and he is out of service since 1991,

and in the meantime, respondent had attained age of

superannuation, we deem it appropriate that ends of justice would

be met by awarding lump sum monetary compensation. We

accordingly direct payment of lump sum compensation of Rs 15

lakhs to the respondent, within a period of eight weeks from today.

Failing to pay the same within the aforesaid period, the respondent

is entitled for interest @ 6% p.a., till payment.”

44.Hence, it is well crystallised that where the facts so warrant, the

Court is empowered to award monetary compensation in lieu of

reinstatement, in such cases where reinstatement is not feasible, and

where such relief of compensation would better serve the ends of

justice.

45.In the present case, the workman had been absent without

authorisation for approximately 500 days and had himself admitted the

charge during the enquiry, while seeking leniency on account of his

personal circumstances. At the same time, the termination founded

upon the vitiated enquiry cannot be sustained. Balancing these

circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that neither

reinstatement, which is no longer feasible, nor full back wages and

continuity of service would constitute an appropriate relief.

46.Accordingly, while affirming the finding of the learned Labour

Court that the termination of the workman was illegal on account of

the enquiry having been conducted in violation of Section 16(iii) of

the Standing Orders, this Court is of the considered view that the relief

W.P.(C) 5535/2006 & W.P.(C) 2551/2006 Page 19 of 19

of reinstatement granted by the learned Labour Court warrants

modification.

47.In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the ends of

justice would be met by awarding a lump-sum compensation of

₹3,00,000/- to the LRs of the workman.

48.The said amount shall be paid by the Management within a

period of eight weeks from the date of this order.

49.The petitions are accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

50.A copy of this order be placed in both the matters.

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

SEPTEMBER 8, 2026

‘KDK’