Delhi High Court Imposes ₹ 1 Lakh Cost On DTC Dept. For Continuing Litigation Involving Back Wages For 32 Years, To Be Recovered From Officer Responsible

Tulip Kanth

5 Sept 2026 1:00 PM IST

The Delhi High Court was considering the DTC Department's petition challenging the correctness of the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal.

The Delhi High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh on the Delhi Transport (DTC) Department for litigating over the issue of payment of 17 months’ back wages to an employee for the last 32 years.

The High Court was considering a petition challenging the correctness of the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, allowing the claim of the Respondent workman.

The Single Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan held, “It is also necessary to note that the petitioner Department has been litigating the issue of payment of 17 months’ back wages to the respondent for the last 32 years. The continued litigation over such a limited claim, for an inordinately long period, amounts to an abuse of the process of law and has resulted in avoidable expenditure of public money.”

“Department is at liberty recover the cost from the Officer responsible for pursuing such insignificant dispute”, it directed.

Factual Background

The respondent workman was working as a conductor with the petitioner department. It was alleged that on November 15, 1994, the respondent was on duty when his bus was checked by the checking staff, and it was found that the respondent had taken the due fare of ₹67 from a group of three and a half passengers but had failed to issue tickets to three passengers. In pursuance of the same, the respondent was placed under suspension, and a charge sheet was issued to him.

The disciplinary authority found that the charges stood proved against the respondent workman and passed the punishment of removal from services against the respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the workman filed an appeal and he was directed to be reinstated into service. The respondent workman thereafter joined back the services of the petitioner and then raised an industrial dispute against the modified punishment awarded to him.

The Tribunal, vide the impugned order, observed that the punishment imposed upon the respondent workman was illegal and he was entitled to his wages on his regular pay scale and for arrears of the reduced wages imposed to bring him to the initial pay scale for the period of two years, along with regular wages for the period from August 14, 1996 to January 13, 1998. It was in such circumstances that the petition came to be filed before the Apex Court.

Reasoning

Delving into the scope of interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with an Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, the Bench explained, “Interference is warranted only where the Award suffers from patent illegality, perversity or an error apparent on the face of the record. The present petition does not invite this Court to re-appreciate the evidence or disturb findings of fact but is confined to examining the legality and propriety of the relief granted by the Industrial Tribunal.”

The Bench noted that the Tribunal had found, on appreciation of the pleadings and evidence, that the respondent workman had consistently pleaded that the enquiry officer had exonerated him of the charges, noting that the charges had been maliciously levelled against the workman. It was further noticed that the petitioner neither controverted this assertion nor placed the enquiry proceedings or the enquiry report before the Tribunal.

As per the Bench, the conclusion of the Tribunal that there was no lawful basis for imposing the punishment upon the respondent workman could not be said to be perverse or legally unsustainable. “The said finding is based on the material placed before the Tribunal, including the failure of the management to produce the enquiry report or otherwise establish any lawful disagreement with the findings of the enquiry officer”, it added.

The Bench came to the conclusion that the Tribunal’s view was reasonable and plausible, calling for no interference by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Thus, dismissing the petition, the Bench imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh upon the petitioner Department.

Cause Title: DTC v. Rajender Prashad (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:7487)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate Manisha Tyagi

Respondent: Advocates Rishabh Verma, Anil Aggarwal, Respondent-in-person

Click here to read/download Order

Related Tags :

Tulip Kanth

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.