The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of fairplay, objectivity, and exclusion of extraneous materials in judicial approach, along with the need for evidence to prove misconduct and the principles of natural justice in conducting inquiries.

Sunita Gupta, J.

1. Challenge in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the award dated 30th April, 2013 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-X, KKD, Delhi in DID No.475/09 whereby the respondent/workman was granted the relief of back wages w.e.f. the date of termination of service, i.e., 6th December, 2006 till the date of his superannuation along with continuity of service and consequential benefits.

2. The respondent (hereinafter referred to as “workman”) was working as a conductor in Delhi Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “corporation”). He was terminated on 6th December, 2006 on the allegations that on 20th June, 1994 when he was on duty on bus No.9792, Ajmeri Gate-Sohna Route, his bus was checked by the checking staff. He had issued tickets of less denomination to two passengers after having accepted full fare from them. On 10th July, 1994, the workman was served with the charge sheet dated 7th July, 1994 to which he submitted his reply. After holding an inquiry, the workman was terminated from his services.

3. The workman filed a direct statement of claim before the Labour Court alleging, inter alia, that he was terminated illegally on 6th December, 2006 by the Corporation on the allegations of issuing tickets of less denomination to two passengers. He was served with the charge sheet on 10th July, 1994 to which he submitted a reply. However, along with charge sheet, neither the list of witnesses nor the list of documents nor the copy of preliminary investigation were supplied to him. After a lapse of 11 years, the management conducted an inquiry into the charges levelled against him where he was not given full opportunity to defend himself. The inquiry was conducted in violation of the instructions issued by the Corporation. He had demanded the documents from the inquiry officer vide his representation dated 11th October, 2004 which were not supplied on the pretext of the same being old. The findings of the Inquiry Officer dated 30th January, 2006 are perverse and not based on evidence. On 1st March, 2006, he received a show cause notice dated 27th February, 2006 which was replied by him but without applying a judicious mind, the disciplinary authority kept the matter pending for long and at last passed the order of removing the petitioner from service on 6th December, 2006. Hence, he claimed reinstatement with full back wages along with consequential benefits.

4. The claim was contested by the Corporation, inter alia, on the grounds that the inquiry was conducted against the workman according to the principles of natural justice and full opportunity was given to him to defend his case. The workman was involved in many cheating cases and he was also removed previously and after re-employment he again committed misconduct. It was further stated that on 20th June, 1994, on checking the bus, the checking staff found that the workman collected Rs.7/- from two passengers but issued two tickets of Rs.5/-. He admitted his fault and handed over two un-punched tickets of Rs.2/- each. The statement of passenger was recorded which was not signed by the workman, as such, a charge sheet was issued to him and was removed after conducting due inquiry. The workman was removed from the services of the management in another cheating case where he was reinstated as per award dated 24th April, 2002. At that time, the present case was pending and no action was taken as the workman was removed in the other case. Thereafter, the present case was re-opened and the inquiry was initiated wherein workman was given full opportunity to defend his case. It was admitted that the workman demanded some documents but the same could not be supplied as the documents were auctioned being more than 2 years old. However, other documents were supplied to him. After considering the report of the inquiry officer and past record of the workman, he was removed from the service. As such, the claim w