$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5444/2018, CM APPL. 21119/2018 M/S DTC AND ANR .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Aditi Gupta, Mr. Amardeep Joshi, Ms. Lavanya Bhardwaj, Mr. Akashdeep, Ms. Anjali Choudhary, Advocates versus SH. OM PRAKASH EX ATI .....Respondent Through: Mr. D.P. Sharma, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI O R D E R % 29.07.2026 1. By way of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek to assail the orders dated 29.07.2017 and 24.08.2017 passed by the learned Pilot Court/POLC-XVII, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in LIR No. 664/2017. 2. Vide the impugned orders, both the issues were decided against the petitioner-management. 3. The facts, in a nutshell, are that the respondent/workman/claimant challenged the order of his termination. It was claimed that he had rendered continuous and uninterrupted service for 33 years. The management had appointed a female conductor on a contractual basis for the period from 26.08.2010 to 22.11.2010. According to the respondent, the said conductor requested him to lend her a sum of Rs.20,000/- as she was in dire need of money. On 28.08.2010, the respondent informed her of his inability to 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 01/08/2026 at 11:35:25 arrange the requested amount. It was alleged that, on account thereof, the said female conductor became annoyed. It was further claimed that she made four phone calls to the respondent from her own mobile phone as well as her father's mobile phone on 29.08.2010 at 8:00 p.m., 8:34 p.m., 8:38 p.m. and 8:43 p.m., threatening him with dire consequences. The respondent thereafter lodged a complaint with PS Kapashera on 30.08.2010, which was registered as DD No. 17B. In the said complaint, the respondent apprehended that he would be falsely implicated at the instance of the said conductor. Thereafter, on 01.09.2010, the conductor lodged a complaint before the Depot Manager alleging that the respondent had attempted to outrage her modesty. The said complaint was referred to the Sexual Harassment Committee ("SHC"). 4. The record reveals that during the pendency of proceedings before the SHC, the complaint was withdrawn in view of a compromise arrived at between the parties on 30.10.2010. The complainant categorically stated before the SHC that she did not wish to pursue any action against the respondent. 5. It appears that, notwithstanding the aforesaid compromise and consequent withdrawal of complaint, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent and a charge-sheet dated 09.12.2010 was issued to him. The respondent submitted his reply to the charge-sheet and sought closure of the disciplinary proceedings in view of the compromise recorded before the SHC. However, the Inquiry Officer disregarded the said plea and submitted a report dated 28.02.2013 recommending the respondent's removal from service. Consequently, a show cause notice dated 22.03.2013 was issued to the respondent, to which he submitted a reply on 28.03.2013. 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 01/08/2026 at 11:35:25 Vide order dated 05.04.2013, the Depot Manager confirmed the penalty of removal from service. 6. The respondent thereafter preferred an appeal in May 2013, which came to be dismissed on 20.09.2013. Thereafter, he submitted a representation to the CMD. In the said representation, the respondent once again highlighted the compromise arrived at before the SHC on 30.10.2010. Pursuant thereto, the CMD sought a report from the SHC, which, vide its detailed report dated 02.06.2015, recommended reinstatement of the respondent in service. 7. Despite the receipt of the aforesaid report, the CMD rejected the respondent's representation vide order dated 28.09.2015 by passing a terse and cursory order without considering or dealing with the findings of the SHC. 8. Vide the impugned order dated 29.07.2017, the Labour Court considered the following preliminary issue:- “Whether the enquiry conducted by the management against the claimant is proper and fair? OPW” 9. In light of aforesaid facts, the aforesaid issue against the management. Vide the subsequent order dated 24.08.2017, the learned Labour Court considered the following terms of reference: “Whether the workman Sh. Om Prakash S/o Sh. Tara Chand is entitled for reinstatement with full back wages and continuity in service with all consequential benefits and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect? " 10. The said issue was also answered against the management and in favour of the claimant. 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 01/08/2026 at 11:35:25 11. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the material placed on record, this Court takes note of the fact that the respondent had lodged a complaint with the police prior to the complaint filed by the female conductor. The complaint filed by the female conductor appears to be a counterblast to the respondent's complaint. Further, the said complaint was withdrawn as a compromise was recorded and the enquiry proceedings before the SHC were dropped. The petitioner initiated and proceeded with the inquiry despite the above. It has also come on record that on asking of CMD, the SHC recommended reinstatement. For all the said reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality, perversity or arbitrariness warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I find no merit in the present petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. 12. The petition along with pending application stands disposed of in above terms. MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J JULY 29, 2026/rd 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 01/08/2026 at 11:35:25