$~24 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7055/2013 BEG RAJ SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sudhanshu Tomar and Mr.Ayush Tomar, Advocates. versus DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION .....Respondent Through: Ms. Manisha Tyagi, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN O R D E R % 06.07.2026 1. The present petition is filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking modification of award dated 24.02.2012 (hereinafter ‘impugned award’) passed by the learned Labour Court in I.C. No. 326/2010. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner was working as a driver with the respondent and availed 108 days leave without pay from January 1991 to November 1991. In view of the same, the petitioner was issued a charge sheet dated 23.03.1992 and an enquiry was initiated against him. Thereafter, the petitioner was removed from service on 16.10.1992. 3. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the learned Labour Court seeking reinstatement and back wages. The learned Labour Court vide the impugned award observed that the removal of the petitioner from service was not justified, however, while deciding the relief to be awarded to the petitioner while noting that 20 years had elapsed since the date of termination and that the petitioner was at the verge of superannuation, the learned Labour Court awarded a lump sum amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation in lieu of reinstatement This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/07/2026 at 15:56:53 and back wages. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the challenge to the present petition is limited to the quantum of the compensation. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the present petition. She submits that the petitioner has been awarded adequate compensation and the same has already been paid to him. 6. It is undisputed that termination of the petitioner was not in accordance with law. It is also now well settled that when the termination was found illegal because of procedural defect, the courts are within their power to grant monetary compensation in lieu of re- instatement. 7. In the present case, a sum of ₹2,00,000/- had been awarded by the Labour Court as a lump sum compensation, which, in the opinion of this Court, is not adequate. The reference before the Labour Court remained pending for almost ten years and the matter before this Court is also pending from almost 13 years. The petitioner, in the meantime, had also reached the age of superannuation. 8. Thus, considering the totality of circumstances, this Court awards a further sum of ₹2,00,000/- as compensation which is directed to be paid to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from date. 9. It is clarified that the enhanced amount of ₹2,00,000/- is payable from the date of passing of the order and shall not bear any interest. 10. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. AMIT MAHAJAN, J JULY 6, 2026/DU This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/07/2026 at 15:56:53