Delhi Transport Corporation vs Ram Dhari Singh 2026 DHC 1187
Synopsis
This judgment addresses the scope of judicial interference by Labour Courts under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in matters of disciplinary punishment imposed by management upon workmen found guilty of misconduct. The core legal controversy revolves around whether the Labour Court, after upholding the validity of a domestic enquiry and affirming the finding of misconduct (habitual unauthorized absence), can modify the penalty of removal from service to deemed retirement solely on the ground of the workman's length of service, without recording a finding that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate. The Delhi High Court set aside the Labour Court's award, holding that such modification without satisfying the jurisdictional precondition under Section 11-A amounts to impermissible sympathetic substitution dehors the statutory framework.
Citation: 2026:DHC:1187
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Shail Jain
Date of Judgment: February 12, 2026
Court Registry: W.P.(C) 6398/2017 & CM APPL. 26448/2017
1. Proper Heading of the Judgment
Delhi Transport Corporation V. Ram Dhari Singh
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Shail Jain
Judgment Date: February 12, 2026 (Reserved on January 16, 2026; Uploaded on February 13, 2026)
Petition: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6398/2017 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
2. Legal Framework
2.1. Principal Legislation
The judgment primarily interprets and applies:
Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – which empowers Labour Courts, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in cases of discharge or dismissal of workmen, including the power to award lesser punishment where the order of discharge or dismissal is found to be "not justified".
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India – under which the Delhi Transport Corporation invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge the Labour Court's award.
2.2. Related Precedents Discussed and Applied
The judgment extensively relies upon the following authorities:
Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. v. Uttam Manohar Nakate [(2005) 2 SCC 489] – For the proposition that the power under Section 11-A cannot be exercised on irrational, extraneous, or merely compassionate considerations.
M.P. Electricity Board v. Jagdish Chandra Sharma [(2005) 3 SCC 401] – Reiterating that interference with punishment requires a finding that the penalty is shockingly disproportionate.
L&T Komatsu Ltd. v. N. Udayakumar [(2008) 1 SCC 224] – Holding that the discretion under Section 11-A is not unbridled and must be exercised within settled judicial parameters; interference permissible only where punishment is wholly or shockingly disproportionate.
LIC of India v. R. Dhandapani [(2006) 13 SCC 613] – Quoted extensively for the principle that Labour Courts are not forums to dole out private benevolence and that judicial results must emanate logically from legal findings, not misplaced sympathy.
Bharat Bhushan v. Delhi Transport Corporation [W.P.(C) No. 1771/2008, decided on 25.10.2010] – For the principle that habitual unauthorized absence reflects lack of devotion to duty and justifies disciplinary action.
Delhi Transport Corporation v. Sardar Singh [2004 SCC (L&S) 946] – Cited for the observation that prolonged unauthorized absence prima facie shows lack of interest in work.
Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen [AIR 1958 SC 130] – For the principle that applying for leave is no excuse when leave has been refused.
Delhi Transport Corporation v. Mahender Singh [W.P.(C) 10360/2016, decided on 07.01.2025] – A recent coordinate bench decision where interference with punishment for habitual absence was set aside.
2.3. Precedents Distinguished
Delhi Transport Corporation v. Ranbir Singh [W.P.(C) 6392/2017, decided on 04.01.2023] – Distinguished on facts, as in that case the workman had furnished leave applications with medical certificates (though not in prescribed format) and had offered explanations for prolonged absence due to compelling family circumstances, whereas in the present case no medical documents pertaining to the relevant period were produced.
Raxa Security Services Ltd. v. Sagar Kumar Mandal [W.P.(C) 8942/2023] and D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd. [(1993) 3 SCC 259] – Distinguished on the ground that those cases concerned termination without adherence to due process, whereas in the present case a proper domestic enquiry was conducted, upheld as fair, and the workman admitted the charge.
3. Relevant Facts of the Case
3.1. Employment Background
The respondent-workman, Sh. Ram Dhari Singh, was appointed as a Conductor with the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC), a public transport undertaking discharging essential public functions. He had rendered approximately 18 years of service.
3.2. Issuance of Charge-Sheet
On July 23, 2001, a charge-sheet was issued to the respondent for being unauthorizedly absent from duty for the period from April 7, 2001, to July 23, 2001. Prior to the charge-sheet, the management had dispatched letters dated April 19, 2001, May 4, 2001, and May 24, 2001, directing the respondent either to report for duty or, in case of illness, to appear before the DTC Medical Board at I.P. Depot for examination. The respondent neither reported for duty nor appeared before the Medical Board.
3.3. Domestic Enquiry
Enquiry Initiation: Vide order dated December 31, 2001, a domestic enquiry was instituted.
Enquiry Proceedings: The enquiry was conducted on February 4, 2002. The Enquiry Officer read over and explained the contents of the charge-sheet to the respondent, who acknowledged receipt. He declined the assistance of a co-worker or labour welfare inspector and chose to defend himself.
Admission of Guilt: During the enquiry, the respondent admitted the charge of unauthorized absence, stating in his defence that he could not report for duty on account of illness.
Enquiry Report: The Enquiry Officer submitted his findings on February 7, 2002, holding the charge proved.
3.4. Disciplinary Action
Show-Cause Notice: After receipt of the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority issued a show-cause notice dated July 4, 2003, proposing the penalty of removal from service.
Reply to Show-Cause: The respondent submitted his reply on August 13, 2003.
Past Service Record: The management considered the respondent's past service record, which reflected multiple instances of unauthorized absence and several punishments, including:
Censure for unauthorized absence from August 30, 1996.
Stoppage of one due increment with cumulative effect for unauthorized absence from July 1, 1997, to October 31, 1997.
Stoppage of two due increments for 39 days of absence in 1999.
Major penalty of reduction by two stages in the time scale for a period of two years for unauthorized absence of 223 days from June 1, 1998, to May 31, 1999.
More than eight adverse entries pertaining to unauthorized absence.Removal Order: On August 29, 2003, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of removal from service.
3.5. Reference to Labour Court
Aggrieved by the removal, the respondent raised an industrial dispute. The Government of NCT of Delhi referred the following question for adjudication before the Labour Court:
"Whether the punishment of removal from service imposed upon Sh. Ram Dhari Singh... by the management vide order dated 29.08.2003 is illegal and/or unjustified, and if so, to what sum of money as monetary relief along with other consequential benefits... and what other relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"
3.6. Proceedings Before Labour Court
The Labour Court framed two issues:
Whether the domestic enquiry was fair and in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
Whether the punishment of removal was legal and justified.
Order dated May 19, 2016: The Labour Court upheld the domestic enquiry, holding that the Enquiry Officer had not violated any principle of natural justice and that the findings were not perverse. It was specifically recorded that:
The workman acknowledged receipt of the charge-sheet.
The Enquiry Officer offered assistance of a co-worker, which was declined.
The allegation of coercion in obtaining admission was disbelieved as no contemporaneous complaint was lodged.
No medical document pertaining to the relevant period of absence was produced before the Enquiry Officer.
Award dated July 8, 2016: While deciding the second issue, the Labour Court held that the charge of unauthorized absence was proved and that the removal was not illegal. However, taking into account the respondent's 18 years of service, the Labour Court exercised its powers under Section 11-A of the ID Act, 1947, and held the punishment to be "slightly disproportionate," modifying it to deemed retirement with consequential retiral benefits and interest at 9% per annum in case of delayed payment.
3.7. Writ Petition Before High Court
Aggrieved by the modification of punishment despite findings in its favour on both issues, DTC filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Vide order dated September 20, 2017, this Court stayed the operation of the impugned award subject to DTC depositing 50% of the awarded amount with the Registrar General.
4. Issues Before the High Court
4.1. Primary Issue Framed by the Court
Whether, after upholding the validity of the domestic enquiry and affirming that the charge of unauthorized absence stood proved, the Labour Court was justified in exercising its powers under Section 11-A of the ID Act, 1947 to modify the penalty of removal from service imposed vide order dated 29th August, 2003 to that of deemed retirement with consequential retiral benefits?
4.2. Subsidiary Considerations
Whether the Labour Court recorded any finding that the punishment was shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct.
Whether the length of service, standing alone, constitutes a legally valid mitigating circumstance for interference under Section 11-A.
Whether the respondent's past service record of habitual unauthorized absence warranted the imposition of the penalty of removal.
5. Ratio Decidendi
5.1. Scope of Supervisory Jurisdiction Under Articles 226 and 227
The Court commenced by delineating the contours of its jurisdiction:
"The jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is supervisory and not appellate. This Court does not re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own view on facts. Interference is warranted only where the Adjudicating Authority has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or where the impugned Award suffers from patent illegality, perversity, or misapplication of settled principles."
5.2. Interpretation of Section 11-A of the ID Act, 1947
The Court examined the text of Section 11-A, emphasizing that:
The provision applies only where the Labour Court is "satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified."
The expression "not justified" does not confer unrestricted appellate power.
The Labour Court must rely only on the materials on record and cannot take fresh evidence.
5.3. Principles Governing Interference Under Section 11-A
Synthesizing the precedents, the Court laid down the following principles:
5.3.1. Shockingly Disproportionate Test
Interference with the quantum of punishment is warranted only if the punishment is so disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct as to shock the conscience of the Court. The Labour Court must record cogent reasons demonstrating such disproportion.
5.3.2. Requirement of a Specific Finding
The Labour Court must record a specific finding that the punishment is "wholly and shockingly disproportionate" to the degree of guilt. Mere use of words like "disproportionate" or "grossly disproportionate" without supporting reasons is insufficient.
5.3.3. Exclusion of Sympathy as a Basis
Sympathy, length of service, or benevolent considerations cannot, by themselves, justify substitution of penalty. The Court quoted with approval from LIC of India v. R. Dhandapani:
"Industrial Tribunals and Labour Courts are not forums whose task is to dole out private benevolence to workmen found by the Labour Court/Tribunal to be guilty of misconduct."
5.3.4. Requirement of Judicial Reasoning
The relief granted must be logical and tenable within the framework of law. Judicial results must emanate logically from legal findings and must be principled and supportable on those findings.
5.4. Application to the Facts of the Case
Applying these principles, the Court held:
5.4.1. Enquiry Upheld and Misconduct Proved
The Labour Court had categorically:
Upheld the domestic enquiry as fair and proper.
Recorded that no medical document pertaining to the relevant period was produced.
Found that the charge of unauthorized absence stood proved.
Noted the adverse past service record of the respondent.
These findings had attained finality as they were not challenged by the respondent.
5.4.2. No Finding of Shockingly Disproportionate Punishment
The Labour Court did not record any finding that the penalty of removal was shockingly disproportionate. The modification was based solely on the ground of the respondent's 18 years of service. The jurisdictional precondition for exercise of power under Section 11-A was therefore not satisfied.
5.4.3. Pattern of Habitual Indiscipline
The Court meticulously catalogued the respondent's past misconduct:
"The present charge was not an isolated lapse but part of a continuing pattern of repeated unauthorized absence for which the Respondent had been punished on multiple prior occasions... The recurring misconduct establishes habitual indiscipline."
5.4.4. Progressive Punishments and Lack of Reform
The management had progressively imposed stricter penalties (censure, stoppage of increments, reduction in time scale), affording repeated opportunities for reform. Despite more than eight adverse entries and at least four major punishments, no improvement followed. In these circumstances, the penalty of removal could not be termed shockingly disproportionate.
5.5. Distinguishing Precedents Cited by Respondent
5.5.1. DTC v. Ranbir Singh (2023) – Distinguished on facts. In that case, the workman had furnished leave applications with medical certificates (though not in prescribed format) and offered explanations for prolonged absence due to compelling family circumstances. In the present case, no medical documents pertaining to the relevant period were produced, and the respondent failed to appear before the Medical Board despite repeated directions.
5.5.2. Raxa Security Services and D.K. Yadav – Distinguished on principle. Those cases concerned termination without adherence to due process (deemed abandonment without proper enquiry). Here, a proper domestic enquiry was conducted, the respondent participated, admitted the charge, and the enquiry was upheld as fair. Once procedural fairness is satisfied, Article 21 cannot be invoked to dilute the consequences of proved misconduct.
5.6. Public Interest Dimension
The Court noted the special character of DTC as a public transport undertaking:
"Unauthorized absence of operational staff such as Conductors has a direct bearing on service delivery and public convenience. In such an organisation, operational discipline maintains a direct nexus with public interest and service continuity. Prolonged unauthorized absence, therefore, cannot be regarded as a mere private lapse devoid of institutional consequence."
6. Legal Principles Established/reaffirmed
6.1. Limits of Section 11-A Power
The judgment reaffirms that Section 11-A of the ID Act, 1947, though conferring wide discretion, does not permit interference with punishment on grounds of sympathy, compassion, or length of service alone. The power must be exercised judicially, with a finding that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate.
6.2. Burden on Workman Seeking Interference
Where the domestic enquiry is upheld and misconduct stands proved, the burden lies on the workman to demonstrate that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate. Mere assertion of long service without more does not discharge this burden.
6.3. Relevance of Past Service Record
The past service record of a workman is a relevant consideration. Where there is a pattern of habitual misconduct and progressive punishments have failed to bring about reform, the penalty of removal may be justified and cannot be lightly interfered with.
6.4. Distinction Between Procedural and Substantive Challenges
Cases involving procedural irregularities (termination without enquiry) stand on a different footing from cases where a fair enquiry has been held and misconduct proved. Precedents dealing with the former cannot be mechanically applied to the latter.
6.5. Supervisory Jurisdiction of High Court
The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, can interfere where the Labour Court has acted in excess of its jurisdiction under Section 11-A by modifying punishment without recording the requisite finding of disproportionality. Such interference is not a reappreciation of evidence but a correction of jurisdictional error.
7. Court's Analysis and Examination
7.1. Two-Stage Adjudication by Labour Court
The Court analyzed the Labour Court's adjudication as a two-stage process:
Stage One: Determination of the validity of the domestic enquiry. The Labour Court answered this in favour of the management, holding the enquiry fair and the findings not perverse.
Stage Two: Determination of the legality and proportionality of punishment. At this stage, despite upholding the enquiry and finding the misconduct proved, the Labour Court modified the punishment.
7.2. Analysis of the Enquiry Proceedings
The Court noted that the Enquiry Officer had:
Read over and explained the charge-sheet to the respondent.
Offered assistance of a co-worker, which was declined.
Recorded the respondent's admission of the charge.
The Labour Court's finding that the enquiry was fair was based on a proper appreciation of these facts.
7.3. Analysis of Medical Evidence
The Labour Court specifically recorded that no medical document pertaining to the period of absence (April 7, 2001 to July 23, 2001) was produced before the Enquiry Officer. The medical papers subsequently relied upon pertained to a later period and were therefore irrelevant. This finding was crucial in negating the workman's defence of illness.
7.4. Analysis of Past Service Record
The Court meticulously examined the past service record, noting:
More than eight adverse entries.
At least four instances of major punishment for similar misconduct.
Progressive escalation of punishments from censure to stoppage of increments to reduction in time scale.
Failure of these punishments to bring about improvement in conduct.
7.5. Application of the Shockingly Disproportionate Test
The Court found that the Labour Court had not applied this test at all. The modification was based solely on the respondent's length of service, without any examination of whether the punishment was so disproportionate as to shock the judicial conscience. This omission vitiated the exercise of power under Section 11-A.
7.6. Analysis of Precedents
7.6.1. Precedents Supporting Management
The Court applied the line of Supreme Court decisions (Bharat Forge, L&T Komatsu, R. Dhandapani) that strictly circumscribe the power of interference under Section 11-A. These decisions establish that the power cannot be exercised on compassionate grounds alone.
7.6.2. Precedents Cited by Respondent
The Court distinguished DTC v. Ranbir Singh on facts, noting that in that case the workman had provided some explanation and medical documents (though not in proper format). In the present case, the respondent failed to provide any medical documents for the relevant period and failed to appear before the Medical Board despite directions.
The Court also distinguished Raxa Security Services and D.K. Yadav, noting that those cases involved termination without enquiry (deemed abandonment), whereas here a full and fair enquiry was conducted.
7.7. Public Interest Consideration
The Court introduced a public interest dimension, noting that DTC is a public transport undertaking and that unauthorized absence of operational staff directly affects service delivery and public convenience. This contextual factor was relevant in assessing whether the punishment was disproportionate.
8. Critical Analysis of the Judgment
8.1. Strengths of the Judgment
8.1.1. Doctrinal Clarity on Section 11-A
The judgment provides a comprehensive exposition of the limits of Section 11-A powers. By synthesizing the line of Supreme Court decisions from Bharat Forge to L&T Komatsu, the Court has laid down clear parameters for when interference with punishment is permissible. The requirement that the Labour Court must record a specific finding that the punishment is "shockingly disproportionate" before modifying the penalty is a salutary principle that prevents arbitrary exercise of discretion.
8.1.2. Emphasis on Judicial Reasoning
The Court's insistence that judicial results must emanate logically from legal findings, quoting extensively from R. Dhandapani, reinforces the importance of reasoned decision-making. The warning against "misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence" is particularly timely given the tendency of some Labour Courts to interfere with punishment on compassionate grounds.
8.1.3. Contextual Sensitivity
The Court's consideration of DTC's character as a public transport undertaking and the impact of unauthorized absence on public service is a valuable contextual factor. This recognizes that the proportionality of punishment must be assessed not only from the workman's perspective but also from the perspective of the employer's functioning and public interest.
8.1.4. Proper Distinction of Precedents
The judgment carefully distinguishes the precedents cited by the respondent, showing that they are inapplicable on facts. This demonstrates a nuanced understanding of precedent and prevents the mechanical application of decisions to dissimilar fact situations.
8.1.5. Reinforcement of Supervisory Jurisdiction
By holding that interference under Articles 226 and 227 is warranted where the Labour Court acts in excess of its jurisdiction under Section 11-A, the judgment strikes an appropriate balance between respecting the Labour Court's discretion and ensuring that such discretion is exercised within legal limits.
8.2. Potential Concerns
8.2.1. Strict Application of the Shockingly Disproportionate Test
While the shockingly disproportionate test is well-established, its application in cases of habitual absence may warrant some nuance. The judgment does not address whether there can be circumstances where, despite a pattern of absence, the punishment of removal might still be disproportionate (e.g., where the absence was due to genuine, though undocumented, illness). The strict application of the test may leave no room for such considerations.
8.2.2. Treatment of Length of Service
The judgment holds that length of service alone cannot justify interference. While this is correct as a general proposition, length of service combined with other factors (such as unblemished record except for the current charge, or compelling personal circumstances) might legitimately be considered. The judgment does not explore this nuance, perhaps because the respondent's record was far from unblemished.
8.2.3. Absence of Discussion on Rehabilitation
The judgment does not consider whether, after 18 years of service, some punishment short of removal (such as compulsory retirement without benefits) might have been appropriate. The focus is entirely on whether removal was shockingly disproportionate, not on whether any lesser punishment could have been imposed.
8.2.4. Potential for Harsh Outcomes
In cases where the workman has rendered long service and the absence, though unauthorized, was due to genuine illness that could not be properly documented, the strict application of the shockingly disproportionate test may lead to harsh outcomes. The judgment does not provide guidance on how such cases should be handled.
8.2.5. Limited Discussion on Burden of Proof
While the judgment notes that the workman failed to produce medical documents, it does not discuss the burden of proof in disciplinary proceedings or whether the employer had any obligation to assist the workman in obtaining medical examination.
8.3. Broader Implications
8.3.1. For Public Sector Undertakings
The judgment provides significant comfort to public sector undertakings like DTC in defending disciplinary actions against habitual absentees. It affirms that repeated unauthorized absence, despite progressive punishments, can justify the ultimate penalty of removal.
8.3.2. For Labour Courts
The judgment sends a clear message to Labour Courts that their power under Section 11-A must be exercised judicially and not on sympathetic grounds. It provides a clear framework: first, determine whether the enquiry was fair; second, determine whether the misconduct is proved; third, if both are answered in favour of management, interfere with punishment only upon a finding that it is shockingly disproportionate, supported by reasons.
8.3.3. For Workmen
The judgment underscores the importance of maintaining a clean service record and the consequences of habitual indiscipline. It also highlights the importance of properly documenting and presenting defences (such as medical grounds) during the enquiry itself, rather than belatedly.
8.3.4. For Judicial Review
The judgment reinforces the scope of High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227. It clarifies that where the Labour Court acts in excess of its jurisdiction under Section 11-A, the High Court can and should interfere. This is not a reappreciation of evidence but a correction of jurisdictional error.
8.4. Comparative Analysis with Other Jurisdictions
While not addressed in the judgment, it may be noted that the "shockingly disproportionate" test is similar to the "Wednesbury unreasonableness" standard in English administrative law and the "manifestly unreasonable" standard in some American jurisdictions. The judgment aligns Indian labour jurisprudence with these international standards of judicial review of administrative action.
9. Final Outcome
The High Court:
Found merit in the writ petition filed by Delhi Transport Corporation.
Set aside the impugned award dated July 8, 2016 passed by the Labour Court, insofar as it modified the punishment of removal to deemed retirement with consequential benefits.
Affirmed the order of removal dated August 29, 2003 passed by the Disciplinary Authority.
Disposed of the writ petition along with pending applications.
Ordered no costs.
The effect of this judgment is that the respondent-workman's challenge to the disciplinary proceedings fails, and the punishment of removal from service stands restored. The Labour Court's modification of punishment, based solely on length of service without a finding of shockingly disproportionate punishment, has been held to be unsustainable and beyond the jurisdiction conferred by Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.