Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, AMIT BANSAL
Delhi Transport Corporation – Appellant
Versus
Dheer Singh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. incident details and termination (Para 3) |
| 2. labour court's findings on termination (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments regarding legality and sympathies (Para 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. misconduct's severity vs. mitigating factors (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. discretion of labour court and appeal resolution (Para 12 , 15) |
| 6. interest liability on balance amount (Para 16) |
JUDGMENT
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. The appeal impugns the judgment dated 28th July, 2020, in W.P.(C) No.6204/2017 preferred by the appellant impugning the Award dated 6th September, 2016 of the Labour Court in an industrial dispute referred for adjudication.
2. We have heard the counsel for the appellant Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) as well as the counsel for the respondent/workman.
3. The respondent/workman was employed as a driver with the appellant DTC. On 10th January, 2006, he was on duty on route no. 33 from Bhajanpura to Noida, with Sat Pal Singh as the conductor on the said bus. The said bus met with an accident near the subway at Gokalpuri, Delhi; no injury however was caused to any passenger and no damage done to the bus. The Police Control Room van which was immediately called to the site, too
The court affirmed the Labour Court's discretion to modify punishment for misconduct based on mitigating circumstances, granting partial back wages despite serious transgressions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's affirmation of the Labour Court's exercise of powers under the Industrial Disputes Act, considering the long service of the respondent ....
The Labour Court cannot modify disciplinary punishment unless it is shockingly disproportionate to the established misconduct; failure to provide cogent reasons for modification renders the interfere....
In cases of wrongful termination of service, the employee is entitled to back wages unless the employer proves that the employee was gainfully employed during the relevant period.
The court upheld the principle of proportionality in imposing punishment for misconduct and considered the claim of parity with another employee.
Acquittal in a criminal trial has no bearing or relevance on disciplinary proceedings as standard of proof in both cases are different and proceedings operate in different fields and with different o....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
