Delhi High Court
M.T.N.L vs Ram Ratan on 25 February, 2026
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 23rd January, 2026
Date of Decision: 25th February, 2026
Uploaded on: 25th February, 2026
+ W.P.(C) 1630/2006 & CM APPL. 1417/2006
MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Chandan Sharma and Mr.
Vikram Sharma, Advs.
versus
SHRI RAM RATAN .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Chirayu Jain, Mr. Raksha
Awasya and Ms. Tanishqua Dhar,
Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN
JUDGMENT
SHAIL JAIN, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the
Petitioner/Management, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL),
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing the Award dated
26.09.2005 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court-II, Rajendra Place, New Delhi,
in I.D. No. 56/1995, whereby the termination of the
Respondent/workman was held to be illegal and unjustified, and the
Petitioner was directed to reinstate the Respondent without back wages
but with continuity of service.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL W.P.(C) 1630/2006 Page 1 of 18
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.02.2026
14:36:36
Facts of the case:
2. Brief facts emerging from the records, which are necessary for the
adjudication of the writ, are that the Respondent was engaged with the
Petitioner/management as a driver (DRM) with effect from 28.09.1982
and was treated as a daily-rated/casual worker, being paid wages as fixed
and revised from time to time under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
3. On 09.01.1988, the Respondent was assigned a Standard-20
vehicle bearing No. DEP-5070, which, according to the Management,
was taken out of the premises of Kidwai Bhawan at about 15:30 hours
and was not parked back on the same day. It was alleged that on
10.01.1988 at about 20:30 hours, the said vehicle was noticed by the Sh.
A.K Trikha, DDG, Vigilance Department at Kosikalan on Delhi-Mathura
Road. Consequently, a show cause notice dated 14.01.1988 was issued to
the Respondent calling upon him to explain why the said lapse should
not be treated as a serious misconduct warranting termination of service.
4. The Respondent/workmen submitted his written explanation dated
28.01.1988, stating that the vehicle was taken out under the oral
directions of Sh. Hari Singh, Junior Telecom Officer for repairs, that the
repairs were carried out, and that the vehicle was duly parked back at
Kidwai Bhawan on the same day at about 18:30 hours. It was further
stated that 10.01.1988 was his weekly off and he had no knowledge of
the subsequent movement of the vehicle.
5. A domestic inquiry was initiated against the Respondent. An
Inquiry Officer was appointed, and after completion of the inquiry
proceedings, the Inquiry Officer submitted a report dated 30.06.1988
holding the charges against the Respondent to be proved. Based on the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL W.P.(C) 1630/2006 Page 2 of 18
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.02.2026
14:36:36
inquiry report, the services of the Respondent were terminated vide order
dated 01.08.1988. The departmental appeal preferred by the Respondent
was also dismissed.
6. Aggrieved by the termination, the Respondent raised an industrial
dispute. The appropriate Government, by reference dated 05.05.1995,
referred the following question for adjudication to the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II:
“Whether the action of the Management of MTNL,
New Delhi, in terminating the services of Shri Ram
Rattan is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the
workman entitled?”
7. Before the Labour Court, the Respondent/workman filed a
statement of claim challenging the legality of the domestic inquiry and
the order of termination. The Respondent alleged, inter alia, that the
inquiry was vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural
justice, that the findings of the Inquiry Officer were based on conjectures
and surmises, and that the punishment imposed was disproportionate.
8. The Management filed a written statement opposing the claim,
contending that a fair and proper inquiry had been conducted, that the
Respondent was afforded adequate opportunity to defend himself, and
that the misconduct stood duly proved on the basis of evidence led in the
inquiry.
9. Upon appreciation of the pleadings and evidence, the learned
Labour Court returned a finding that the domestic inquiry conducted by
the Management was fair and in accordance with the principles of
natural justice. The Labour Court, in clear terms, recorded that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL W.P.(C) 1630/2006 Page 3 of 18
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.02.2026
14:36:36
Respondent had been given sufficient opportunity to participate in the
inquiry proceedings and to cross-examine the witnesses of the
Management. The relevant para is reproduced as under:
“It also transpires from perusal of the inquiry
proceedings that principles of natural justice have been
followed. The workman applicant has been given ample
opportunity to cross examine the witnesses of the
management. The workman has examined the witnesses
in his defence as such principles of natural justice have
been followed in conduct of the inquiry proceedings.”
10. However, while accepting the fairness of the inquiry, the Labour
Court proceeded to examine the findings returned by the Inquiry Officer
and held that the conclusion regarding misconduct was not sustainable.
The Labour Court observed that the evidence on record did not
conclusively establish that the Respondent had unauthorisedly misused
the vehicle.
11. On the aspect of relief, the Labour Court recorded a finding that
the Respondent was gainfully employed during the intervening period.
Nevertheless, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the Respondent
with continuity of service, while denying back wages. The operative
portion of the Award reads as under:
“The action of the management of MTNL, New Delhi,
in terminating the services of Shri Ram Rattan is held
to be illegal and unjustified. The workman is entitled to
reinstatement in service with continuity of service.
However, no back wages are awarded.”
12. Aggrieved by the said Award, the Petitioner/Management has
approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL W.P.(C) 1630/2006 Page 4 of 18
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.02.2026
14:36:36
Submissions of the Parties:
13. The learned counsel for the Petitioner/Management argued that the
Tribunal while exercising jurisdiction under Section 11A of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as ‘The Act‘) had
exceeded its jurisdiction and acted as a Court of Appeal. It is contented
that, though, the Labour Court vide order dated 26.09.2005 had held that
the Disciplinary Enquiry against the Respondent was fair and proper, had
re-appreciated the evidence and had interfered with the punishment order
illegally.
14. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the sole issue in
the present writ petition is whether, after upholding the fairness of the
inquiry, the Labour Court could have interfered with the findings of
misconduct on the ground that the evidence was “not reliable”. It was
contended that such an exercise amounts to examining the adequacy and
sufficiency of evidence, which is impermissible in law once procedural
fairness is established. Reliance in this regard was placed on the
judgment of the Supreme Court in General Manager (P) Canara Bank
v. Ganganarasimhaiah [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1939].
15. Learned counsel further contended that the impugned Award
suffers from an inherent contradiction, inasmuch as the Labour Court has
itself held that the principles of natural justice were followed during the
inquiry proceedings, yet proceeded to discard the findings of the Inquiry
Officer by reassessing the evidentiary material. It was urged that the
Labour Court could have interfered only if the findings were perverse or
based on no evidence, which is not the case here.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL W.P.(C) 1630/2006 Page 5 of 18
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.02.2026
14:36:36
16. Learned counsel also drew the attention of this Court to the
interim order dated 11.07.2012 passed in the present writ petition,
whereby the Petitioner was directed to pay wages to the Respondent
under Section 17B of the Act, subject to an undertaking by the
Respondent to refund the amount in the event the Petitioner succeeds. It
was submitted that the Respondent has admittedly received payments
under Section 17B up to 16.12.2016, being the date of his
superannuation.
17. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Respondent/workman sought to sustain the impugned Award by
contending that the present case is one of absence of evidence and
perversity in the findings of the domestic inquiry. It was submitted that
the Respondent had been permitted on 09.01.1988 to take the vehicle out
for repairs, which fact stands noticed even in the inquiry report, and that
after repairs the vehicle was parked back at Kidwai Bhawan on the same
day.
18. Learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that 10.01.1988
was a Sunday and the Respondent was on his weekly off. It was
contended that the allegation of the vehicle being seen at Kosikalan on
that date was based solely on the statement of Shri A.K. Trikha, who did
not appear as a witness in the inquiry proceedings. According to learned
counsel, the Respondent was thus deprived of an opportunity to cross-
examine the sole complainant, rendering the inquiry violative of the
principles of natural justice.
19. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, opposed the aforesaid
submissions and contended that the Respondent ought to have sought his
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL W.P.(C) 1630/2006 Page 6 of 18
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.02.2026
14:36:36
examination as a defence witness during the inquiry proceedings. It was
submitted that it was never the Petitioner’s case that Shri A.K. Trikha
was required to be examined by the Management, and that the
Respondent, despite being afforded full opportunity, failed to summon
him.
20. Learned counsel for the Respondent further submitted that none of
the documentary material relied upon by the Management established
that the vehicle was missing or unauthorisedly used. It was argued that
the log book was not produced, the relevant registers did not reflect any
missing entry, and the registers themselves were not properly
maintained. On this basis, it was contended that the Labour Court rightly
exercised its powers under Section 11A of the Act.
Issues for consideration:
21. In light of the pleadings, the impugned Award and the
submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, the following issues arise
for consideration before this Court:
21.1 Whether the learned Labour Court, after holding that the
domestic inquiry was fair and conducted in accordance with the
principles of natural justice, was justified in interfering with the
findings of the Inquiry Officer and setting aside the order of
termination?
21.2 Whether the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer could
be said to be perverse or based on no evidence so as to warrant
interference by the Labour Court in exercise of its powers under
Section 11A of the Act?
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL W.P.(C) 1630/2006 Page 7 of 18
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.02.2026
14:36:36
21.3 Whether the impugned Award suffers from any perversity,
patent illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference by
this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?
Analysis and Reasoning
22. This Court has heard the rival contentions of both the parties and
perused the documents placed on record and judgments relied upon by
the parties.
23. Issue Nos. 1 and 2, which concern the scope of interference by the
learned Labour Court with the findings recorded in the domestic inquiry
after holding the inquiry to be fair and proper, are closely interlinked and
are therefore taken up together for consideration.
24. A perusal of the impugned Award shows that the Labour Court
has returned a categorical finding that the domestic inquiry conducted by
the Petitioner/Management was fair, proper and that the principles of
natural justice were duly complied with. The said finding was returned
after noticing that the Respondent had participated in the inquiry
proceedings, that several management witnesses were examined, that the
Respondent was afforded opportunity to cross-examine them, and that he
was also permitted to lead defence evidence. The said finding has
attained finality.
25. Having so held, the Labour Court nevertheless proceeded to
examine the evidence led before the Inquiry Officer and concluded that
the findings of misconduct were “not based on reliable evidence” and
were therefore liable to be set aside. The relevant portion of the final
award is reproduced hereunder:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL W.P.(C) 1630/2006 Page 8 of 18
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.02.2026
14:36:36
“The Inquiry Officer has proceeded on assumptions
inasmuch as the fault, if any, lay with the gateman who
was responsible for making entries regarding the
movement of vehicles. Merely because the entry was not
found in the register, the workman cannot be held guilty
of misconduct.
…..
Strict Rules of Evidence Act is not applicable in domestic
inquiries but the evidence that has come during the
inquiry should be considered and the Inquiry Officer
should not hold the charge sheeted employee guilty on the
basis of assumption and preponderance of probability.
He should also consider the other aspect of the evidence
and after consideration of totality of evidence he should
reach the conclusion regarding the guilt or otherwise of
the charge sheeted employee. In the instant case the
Inquiry Officer has not taken into account the statement
of the Gateman, Shri Trilok Singh, Security man, Ram
Milan and the Driver Shri Amar Singh and the Junior
Engineer who permitted the workman to take the vehicle
out. The evidence of these four witnesses is material for
the correct conclusion of the inquiry. No attempt has been
made by the Inquiry Officer to consider the substantial
evidence of the witnesses referred to above. Hence the
findings of the Inquiry Officer are based on assumption,
conjecture and surmises in utter disregard of the evidence
of the material witnesses. If there are several witnesses
and there is material contradiction in their evidence then
the entire evidence is to be analyzed and then conclusion
should follow. There is no consideration of the material
evidence referred to above by the Inquiry Officer. This is
not the case of a sole testimony. It can be gathered that
according to the reliable witness the vehicle might be
inside the parking place as the incoming entry was not
made by the Gateman in the relevant register. The
findings of the Inquiry Officer is not based on reliable
evidence so it is liable to be set aside and is set aside.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL W.P.(C) 1630/2006 Page 9 of 18
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.02.2026
14:36:36
26. A careful reading of the above reasoning shows that the Labour
Court interfered with the findings on the following premises:
(i) that the gate register was not properly maintained;
(ii) that the negligence, if any, was attributable to the Gateman;
(iii) that certain witnesses were not properly considered; and
(iv) that the Inquiry Officer allegedly proceeded on “assumption
and preponderance of probability”.
27. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has assailed this approach by
contending that the Labour Court has exceeded its jurisdiction by re-
appreciating the evidence and substituting its own conclusions for those
of the Inquiry Officer, despite having upheld the fairness of the inquiry.
It was urged that the Labour Court has ventured into the realm of
adequacy and reliability of evidence, which is impermissible in law.
28. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent sought to
justify the interference by submitting that the present case is one of
perversity and absence of evidence, and that the Labour Court was
therefore justified in exercising its powers under Section 11A of the Act.
29. The legal position governing the scope of interference by a Labour
Court with the findings of a domestic inquiry is well settled. Once a
domestic inquiry is held to be fair and in compliance with the principles
of natural justice, the Labour Court does not sit as an appellate authority
over the findings of the Inquiry Officer. Interference is permissible only
where the findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or are such that
no reasonable person could have arrived at. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749, has held as
under:-
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL W.P.(C) 1630/2006 Page 10 of 18
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.02.2026
14:36:36
“12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but
a review of the manner in which the decision is made.
Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the
individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that
the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily
correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is
conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant,
the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the
inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules
of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings
or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority
entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction,
power and authority to reach a finding of fact or
conclusion. But that finding must be based on some
evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor
of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to
disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that
evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the
disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the
delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The
Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not
act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence
and to arrive at its own independent findings on the
evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the
authority held the proceedings against the delinquent
officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural
justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the
mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding
reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no
evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no
reasonable person would have ever reached, the
Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the
finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate
to the facts of each case.”
[Emphasis supplied]
30. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Standard Chartered
Bank v. R.C. Srivastava, (2021) 19 SCC 281 has held that in the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL W.P.(C) 1630/2006 Page 11 of 18
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.02.2026
14:36:36
disciplinary proceedings, the tribunal cannot convert itself into court of
appeal and also cannot revisit the evidence and in excess of its
jurisdiction conferred by Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947. Relevant Paragraphs of the Judgment are reproduced hereunder:
“19. In the instant case, after we have gone through the
record, we find that the Tribunal has converted itself into
a court of appeal as an appellate authority and has
exceeded its jurisdiction while appreciating the finding
recorded in the course of domestic enquiry and tested on
the broad principles of charge to be proved beyond
reasonable doubt which is a test in the criminal justice
system and has completely forgotten the fact that the
domestic enquiry is to be tested on the principles of
preponderance of probabilities and if a piece of evidence
is on record which could support the charge which has
been levelled against the delinquent unless it is per se
unsustainable or perverse, ordinarily is not to be
interfered by the Tribunal, more so when the domestic
enquiry has been held to be fair and proper and, in our
view, the Tribunal has completely overlooked and
exceeded its jurisdiction while interfering with the finding
recorded during the course of enquiry in furtherance of
which, the Respondent was dismissed from service and
the High Court has also committed a manifest error while
passing the judgment impugned.
20. The decision of the Labour Court should not be based
on mere hypothesis. It cannot overturn the decision of the
management on ipse dixit. Its jurisdiction under Section
11-A of the 1947 Act although is a wide one but it must be
judiciously exercised. Judicial discretion, it is trite,
cannot be exercised either whimsically or capriciously. It
may scrutinise or analyse the evidence but what is
important is how it does so.”
31. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in General Manager (P), Canara
Bank v. Ganganarasimhaiah [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1939], while
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL W.P.(C) 1630/2006 Page 12 of 18
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.02.2026
14:36:36
dealing with a similar situation where the Tribunal had re-appreciated
the evidence after holding the inquiry to be fair, observed that courts and
tribunals are required to examine and determine only the following
aspects:
“(i) Whether the enquiry was held by the competent
authority?
(ii) Whether the rules of natural justice have been complied
with?
(iii) Whether the conclusions arrived at by the Disciplinary
Authority are based on no evidence or the findings are
perverse?”
The Court further reiterated that strict rules of evidence are not
applicable to departmental proceedings and that charges can be proved
on the principle of preponderance of probabilities.
32. Applying the parameters laid down in General Manager (P),
Canara Bank v. Ganganarasimhaiah (supra) to the facts of the present
case, this Court finds that none of the conditions warranting interference
are attracted.
32.1 As regards the first criterion, there is no dispute that the
domestic enquiry was conducted by a competent authority in
accordance with the applicable rules.
32.2 With respect to the second criterion, the enquiry proceedings
were held in compliance with the principles of natural justice; the
Respondent/workman participated in the enquiry, several
management witnesses were examined, opportunity of cross-
examination was granted, defence evidence was permitted, and the
learned Labour Court itself returned a categorical finding at the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL W.P.(C) 1630/2006 Page 13 of 18
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.02.2026
14:36:36
preliminary stage that the enquiry was fair and proper, which
finding has attained finality.
32.3 Turning to the third criterion, namely whether the
conclusions of the Disciplinary Authority were based on no
evidence or were perverse, this Court finds no such infirmity. The
expression “perversity” has a well-understood connotation in
service jurisprudence. A finding can be termed perverse only
when it is based on no evidence, or when relevant material has
been completely ignored, or where the conclusion is such that no
reasonable person acting judicially could have arrived at on the
material available on record. In the present case, The Inquiry
Officer relied upon the material on record, including the gate
register entries, the movement of the vehicle, and the explanation
furnished by the Respondent. Importantly, the case of the
Management that the vehicle was seen at Kosi Kalan by Shri A.K.
Trikha on 10.01.1988 was not specifically denied or controverted
by the Respondent during the enquiry; rather, the Respondent’s
defence was confined to asserting that the said date was his
weekly off. In the presence of such material, it cannot be said that
the findings of the Inquiry Officer were based on no evidence or
were so unreasonable that no prudent person could have arrived at
them. At best, the reasoning adopted by the learned Labour Court
reflects a different appreciation of the same evidence, which does
not meet the threshold of perversity as laid down by the Supreme
Court. Consequently, the interference by the learned Labour Court
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL W.P.(C) 1630/2006 Page 14 of 18
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.02.2026
14:36:36
cannot be sustained within the limited parameters governing
judicial review in disciplinary matters.
33. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court holds that the
learned Labour Court, despite having upheld the fairness of the domestic
inquiry, exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 11A of the Act by re-
appreciating the evidence and substituting its own conclusions for those
of the Inquiry Officer. The findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer were
based on material forming part of the inquiry record and cannot be
characterised as perverse or based on no evidence. The principal ground
urged by the Respondent to assail the inquiry findings is the non-
examination of Shri A.K. Trikha. This Court is unable to accept the said
contention. The non-examination of Shri A.K. Trikha, by itself, does not
vitiate the inquiry, particularly when the Respondent did not dispute the
management’s assertion regarding the sighting of the vehicle and failed
to summon the said witness as a defence witness despite opportunity.
34. Accordingly, Issue Nos. 1 and 2 are answered in favour of the
Petitioner/Management and against the Respondent/Workman.
35. Issue No. 3 concerns the scope of interference by this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India with an Award passed by the
Labour Court. It is well settled that the jurisdiction of this Court in such
matters is supervisory and not appellate. Interference under Article 226
is warranted only where the Award suffers from patent illegality,
perversity, jurisdictional error or where the Labour Court has acted in
excess of its jurisdiction.
36. In Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court authoritatively delineated the parameters
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL W.P.(C) 1630/2006 Page 15 of 18
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.02.2026
14:36:36
governing judicial review in disciplinary matters and simultaneously
identified the acts which are impermissible for High Courts while
exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India. The relevant observations are reproduced hereunder:
“12. […] The High Court, in exercise of its powers
under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall
not venture into reappreciation of the evidence. The High
Court can only see whether:
(a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority;
(b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure
prescribed in that behalf;
(c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in
conducting the proceedings;
(d) the authorities have disabled themselves from
reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations
extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;
(e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be
influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;
(f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly
arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could
ever have arrived at such conclusion;
(g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to
admit the admissible and material evidence;
(h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted
inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding:
(i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence.
13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India,
the High Court shall not:
(i) reappreciate the evidence;
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case
the same has been conducted in accordance with law;
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which
findings can be based.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL W.P.(C) 1630/2006 Page 16 of 18
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.02.2026
14:36:36
(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear
to be;
(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it
shocks its conscience.”
37. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, it
becomes evident that the impugned Award does not withstand scrutiny
under Article 226 of the Constitution. As already held while deciding
Issue Nos. 1 and 2, the learned Labour Court, despite having upheld the
fairness of the domestic inquiry and compliance with the principles of
natural justice, proceeded to reappreciate the evidentiary material and to
substitute its own conclusions for those of the Inquiry Officer. The
Labour Court did not record any finding of perversity, absence of
evidence, or consideration of extraneous material, yet interfered on the
basis of its own assessment of reliability and sufficiency of evidence.
This clearly amounts to an excess of jurisdiction and a failure to adhere
to the settled limits of judicial review.
38. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the
impugned Award suffers from a jurisdictional error and patent illegality
warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Issue No. 3 is answered in favour of the Petitioner/management and
against the Respondent/workman.
Conclusion
39. In view of the findings returned on Issue Nos. 1, 2 and 3, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned Award cannot be
sustained. The learned Labour Court, despite having held the domestic
inquiry to be fair and in accordance with the principles of natural justice,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL W.P.(C) 1630/2006 Page 17 of 18
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.02.2026
14:36:36
exceeded the limits of its jurisdiction under Section 11A of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 by re-appreciating the evidence and substituting its
own conclusions for those of the Inquiry Officer, without recording any
finding that the disciplinary conclusions were perverse or based on no
evidence.
40. Consequently, the Award dated 26.09.2005 passed by the learned
Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court-II, in I.D. No. 56/1995, is hereby set aside.
41. As a result, thereof, the order of termination dated 01.08.1988
passed against the Respondent/workman stands restored.
42. It is clarified that the amounts paid to the Respondent under
Section 17B of the Act during the pendency of the present writ petition
were paid pursuant to interim orders of this Court and shall not be
recoverable from the Respondent.
43. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in the above terms.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. There shall be no order
as to costs.
SHAIL JAIN
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 25, 2026/dg
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL W.P.(C) 1630/2006 Page 18 of 18
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.02.2026
14:36:36
