W.P.(C) 7098/2001 & W.P.(C) 7657/2001 Page 1 of 8 $~1 & 2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: August 17th, 2026 # CNR No. DLHC010255352001 + W.P.(C) 7098/2001 & CM APPL. 5840/2011 DALBIR SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Rashmi B. Singh, Adv. versus D.T.C. & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh & Ms. Aliza Alam, Advs. on behalf of Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC (DTC) 2 # CNR No. DLHC010261562001 + W.P.(C) 7657/2001 DTC .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh & Ms. Aliza Alam, Advs. on behalf of Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC (DTC) versus DALBIR SINGH .....Respondent Through: Ms. Rashmi B. Singh, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral) 1. The core dispute in the present petitions pertains to order dated 17.05.2001, passed in O.P. No. 133/91, whereby the learned Industrial Signed By:DEEPANSHU Signing Date:20.08.2026 19:17:03 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 7098/2001 & W.P.(C) 7657/2001 Page 2 of 8 Tribunal dismissed DTC’s application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereafter ‘the ID Act’) and declined to approve removal of the workman Dalbir from service. 2. While W.P.(C) 7657/2001 has been filed by DTC impugning the correctness of the aforesaid order, W.P.(C) 7098/2001 has been filed by the workman essentially for implementation of the same by way of reinstatement with full back wages. 3. Briefly stated, the petitioner was employed as a conductor with DTC with effect from 24.05.1977. On 30.03.1991, on the basis of report of the checking staff, a charge sheet was issued against the workman for misconduct in relation to an event that took place on 30.03.1991. Allegedly, when the bus where the workman was performing his duty was checked at Hindon Airport on the said date, it was found that he had collected fare of ₹7 for two tickets from Loni Road Xing to Ghaziabad, however, he had issued tickets of less denomination to the concerned passengers, that is, two tickets of ₹2.50/- each from U.P. Border to Ghaziabad instead. It was alleged that the workman had admitted his fault in the presence of the passengers, but he refused to sign the passenger’s statement. Two unpunched tickets from Loni Road Xing to U.P. Border were also allegedly surrendered by the workman. 4. The charge levelled against the petitioner was found to be proved by the enquiry officer, whereafter, by order dated 23.12.1991, his services were terminated. On the same day, DTC filed the application under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act before the learned Tribunal seeking approval to terminate the services of the workman as Signed By:DEEPANSHU Signing Date:20.08.2026 19:17:03 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 7098/2001 & W.P.(C) 7657/2001 Page 3 of 8 an industrial dispute concerning DTC workers’ demand for implementation of 4th Pay Commission’s recommendations was pending adjudication at that time. DTC examined one of the members of the checking staff– Ram Dayal, who supported the report of the checking staff but admitted that the fare was not paid by the concerned passengers in his presence and that he had not recorded the statement of the passengers. The workman examined himself and deposed that the unpunched tickets were snatched from him and he had issued the appropriate tickets to the concerned passengers, who had boarded from U.P. Border, after noting the balance amount of ₹5 on the back of the ticket. 5. By the order dated 17.05.2001, the learned Tribunal rejected the said application on finding that DTC had failed to establish that the workman had committed the alleged misconduct for which he was dismissed from service. The learned Tribunal found that the evidence of Mr. Ram Dayal and the statements of the checking staff were hearsay in respect of the place of boarding of the concerned passengers and the fare paid by the concerned passengers. Finding that the same could only be believed if they were supported by the statements of the concerned passengers, the learned Tribunal took into account the statement given by the passenger Ramesh Kumar (that is, the concerned passenger who was allegedly given the ticket of lower denomination along with his wife) before the enquiry officer. Appreciating that the said passenger had not supported DTC’s case in the enquiry proceedings, it was held that the same could not be ignored, especially since the said passenger was not examined before Signed By:DEEPANSHU Signing Date:20.08.2026 19:17:03 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 7098/2001 & W.P.(C) 7657/2001 Page 4 of 8 the Tribunal. 6. The workman expired during the pendency of the proceedings. 7. Before this Court, DTC has assailed the said order essentially on the ground that approval could not have been refused merely on account of the concerned passengers not being examined. It is stressed that production of the concerned passengers is not necessary and reliance is placed on the decision in State of Haryana and another v. Rattan Singh : (1977) 2 SCC 491 in this respect. It is further argued that the learned Tribunal has exceeded the scope of its limited jurisdiction under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act by undertaking a detailed examination of the evidence. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the workman has argued that the learned Tribunal has aptly appreciated the record and the workman ought to be granted consequential benefits after having suffered through the protracted proceedings. 9. Having heard the counsel and perused the record, this Court is not persuaded by the assertions made on behalf of DTC. 10. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act are summary in nature and the purpose of the same is to safeguard workman against alteration of terms of service and punitive measures during pendency of an industrial dispute. The Tribunal/ Labour Court is only required to oversee as to whether the domestic enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner in accordance with principles of natural justice, and if a prima facie case for dismissal is made out. For the said purpose, the Tribunal/ Labour Court has to appraise the record of enquiry, though it Signed By:DEEPANSHU Signing Date:20.08.2026 19:17:03 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 7098/2001 & W.P.(C) 7657/2001 Page 5 of 8 can permit the parties to adduce their respective evidence before it in case the domestic enquiry suffers from any defect. Such proceedings are however not on par with the jurisdiction to adjudicate an industrial dispute qua termination under Sections 10 read with Sections 11(3) and 11-A of the ID Act [Ref. John D’Souza v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation : (2019) 18 SCC 47]. 11. The present case is one where the learned Tribunal ultimately found that the enquiry was conducted properly as the parties were allowed to lead evidence and afforded proper opportunities of being heard to them. However, approval was not granted as the enquiry report was found to be perverse as the findings of the enquiry officer were not based on evidence. 12. Order dated 17.05.2001 indicates that the main factor which weighed the learned Tribunal was that the concerned passengers, who had purportedly been given the ticket of lower denomination, had denied the statement before the checking staff and belied the case of DTC. 13. In his statement before the enquiry officer, the said passenger had asserted that he had boarded with his wife from U.P. Border for going to Ghaziabad, for which the workman had issued him two tickets of ₹2.50. Though he stated that he had given a currency of ₹10 for the tickets and the workman had not handed over the balance amount of ₹5, however, he categorically asserted that the workman had not committed any mistake. He also stated that he had given his address to the checking staff when they threatened him about police and denied having given anything in writing to the checking staff. He Signed By:DEEPANSHU Signing Date:20.08.2026 19:17:03 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 7098/2001 & W.P.(C) 7657/2001 Page 6 of 8 also stated that the workman had not committed any error. Perusal of the enquiry report reflects that the enquiry officer brushed aside the statement made by the passenger during the proceedings as unacceptable by making conjectures that the same was given in connivance with the workman. No particular reason was recorded as to how connivance was inferred by the enquiry officer, especially since the workman had stated in cross-examination that he had not given his details to the checking staff in front of the workman. Though enquiry officer was weighed by the workman’s murky past record, the same will not lend to presumption of guilt against the workman. 14. Much emphasis is laid by DTC on examination of passengers not being necessary. It is well-settled that non-examination of the passengers as witnesses is not fatal to termination proceedings, especially since tracing passengers their presence would be impractical and other evidence in the form of examination of the checking staff is deemed sufficient. More often than not, even if the passengers are not examined, their statements which are produced by checking staff to corroborate the allegations prove significant. 15. Be that as it may, the present case stands on a significantly different footing as the passenger Ramesh was examined in enquiry. As appreciated by the learned Tribunal, as the checking staff did not witness the passengers boarding the bus or payment of fare, the allegations are helmed on the purported statement of the passenger Ramesh, which was produced by the witness Ram before the Tribunal and also relied on by the enquiry officer. The evidence of the checking staff was thus rightly deemed to be hearsay. As the said passenger has Signed By:DEEPANSHU Signing Date:20.08.2026 19:17:03 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 7098/2001 & W.P.(C) 7657/2001 Page 7 of 8 explicitly denied having given the statement and controverted the allegations, doubt is cast on the entire case. Pertinently, DTC has not made any endeavour to impeach the credibility of the said passenger either. In such a case, the learned Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence of the passenger Ramesh and arrived at a plausible view that DTC had failed to establish that he had boarded the bus from Ghaziabad. The evidence of the passenger Ramesh thus crumbled the very foundation of DTC’s case, which could have only redressed by puncturing holes in his version. 16. Though examination of a passenger is not necessary, once a passenger produced by DTC is examined and they don’t support the allegations, an adverse inference ought to be drawn in favour of the workman unless DTC is able to discredit the same. While there may be certain discrepancies in relation to endorsement made by the workman qua balance amount of ₹5, however, the aforesaid observations are sufficient to hold that prima facie case for dismissal was not made out. Pertinently, cash collected by the workman was also not checked so as to lend credence to allegations. 17. However, insofar as relief is concerned, although refusal of approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act undisputedly renders the termination order to be non-est with consequential benefit of the employee being deemed as continuing in service, this Court considers it apposite to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction to award a lump-sum monetary compensation in this case instead. The decision of this Court is motivated primarily by the fact that the workman was terminated in the year 1991, the subject order was passed more than Signed By:DEEPANSHU Signing Date:20.08.2026 19:17:03 W.P.(C) 7098/2001 & W.P.(C) 7657/2001 Page 8 of 8 25 years back and the workman attained the age of superannuation in the year 2013 itself. 18. Pertinently, the workman’s application under Section 17B of the ID Act was allowed on 12.04.2005, and he continued to drawn wages till the date of his superannuation. Though the same is not in the nature of compensation, in the opinion of this Court, interests of justice will be met if the workman is granted a compensation of ₹3,00,000/- in addition to the same. 19. The petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending application also stands disposed of. 20. A copy of the order be placed in both the matters. AMIT MAHAJAN, J AUGUST 17, 2026 “SS” Signed By:DEEPANSHU Signing Date:20.08.2026 19:17:03