Dismissed

Dtc v. Azad Singh

Delhi HC8 May 2024W.P.(C)/384/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Delhi High Court upheld the Labour Court's award dismissing the DTC's challenge to a bus conductor's reinstatement and backlitigation fees. The court found the domestic enquiry vitiated due to procedural flaws and lack of corroborative evidence against the workman.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; impugned orders upholding workman's reinstatement and award upheld.

What the court decided

AI extract

Dtc Vs Azad Singh — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Delhi HC (2024)

¶144

may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for aprudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. It is true that departmental authorities and Administrative Tribunals must be careful in evaluating such material and should not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under the Indian Evidence Act. For this proposition it is not necessary to cite decisions nor text books, although we have been taken through case-law and other authorities by counsel on both sides. The essence of a judicial approach is objectivity, exclusion of extraneous materials or considerations and observance of rules of natural justice. Of course, fairplay is the basis and if perversity or arbitrariness, bias or surrender of independence of judgment vitiate the conclusions reached, such finding, even though of a domestic tribunal, cannot be held good. However, the courts below misdirected themselves, perhaps, in insisting that passengers who had come in and gone out should be chased and brought before the tribunal before a valid finding could be recorded. The ‘residuum’ rule to which counsel for the respondent referred, based upon certain passages from American Jurisprudence does not go to that extent nor does the passage from Halsbury insist on such rigid requirement. The simple point is, was there some evidence or was there no evidence — not in the sense of the technical rules governing regular court proceedings but in a fair commonsense way as men of understanding and worldly wisdom will accept. Viewed in this way, sufficiency of evidence in proof of the finding by a domestic tribunal is beyond scrutiny. Absence of any evidence in support of a finding is certainly available for the court to look into because it amounts to an error of law apparent on the record. We find, in this case, that the evidence of Chamanlal, Inspector of the Flying Squad,is some evidence which has relevance to the charge levelled against the respondent. Therefore, we are unable to hold that the order is invalid on that ground

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A compact analysis