{"id":66139,"date":"2010-12-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-12-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-transport-corporation-vs-shri-subhash-chand-on-9-december-2010"},"modified":"2016-08-13T03:11:28","modified_gmt":"2016-08-12T21:41:28","slug":"delhi-transport-corporation-vs-shri-subhash-chand-on-9-december-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-transport-corporation-vs-shri-subhash-chand-on-9-december-2010","title":{"rendered":"Delhi Transport Corporation vs Shri Subhash Chand on 9 December, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Delhi Transport Corporation vs Shri Subhash Chand on 9 December, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Indermeet Kaur<\/div>\n
R-139\n*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n\n%                  Judgment Reserved on: 07.12.2010\n                  Judgment Delivered on: 09.12.2010\n\n+                        RSA No.167\/2003\n\n\n       DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION       ...........Appellant\n                Through: Mr.J.N.Aggarwal & Mr.Mayank Joshi,\n                         Advocates.\n\n                   Versus\n\n       SHRI SUBHASH CHAND                        ..........Respondent\n                Through: None.\n\n       CORAM:\n       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR\n\n     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to\n        see the judgment?\n\n     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?             Yes\n\n     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?\n                                                          Yes\n\nINDERMEET KAUR, J.\n<\/pre>\n
1.     The present appeal has impugned the judgment and decree<\/p>\n
dated 15.5.2003 which had endorsed the finding of the Trial Judge<\/p>\n
dated 07.2.1996 whereby the suit of the plaintiff Subhash Chand<\/p>\n
had been decreed in his favour.\n<\/p>\n
2.     The plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent and mandatory<\/p>\n
injunction with a prayer that a declaration be passed declaring that<\/p>\n
the order of punishment dated 16.8.1991 (whereby the plaintiff<\/p>\n
was awarded punishment of reduction in his pay scale from<\/p>\n
Rs.1130\/- to his initial pay scale of Rs.950\/-) be declared<\/p>\n
unwarranted and void ab initio with a direction that the defendant<\/p>\n
be directed to pay the salary of the plaintiff in terms of his pay<\/p>\n
scale of Rs.1130\/-.\n<\/p>\n
RSA No.167\/2003                                         Page 1 of 6<\/span><\/p>\n
 3.    Plaintiff was employed with the DTC as a conductor. He was<\/p>\n
in the pay scale of Rs.950-20-1150. He was made a victim of the<\/p>\n
malpractices of the checking staff.           Plaintiff was performing his<\/p>\n
duties honestly and diligently but due to the connivance of some of<\/p>\n
the members of the checking staff of the DTC, false allegations had<\/p>\n
been levelled against him pursuant to which a charge sheet had<\/p>\n
been filed against the him. This was on 11.11.1997. Enquiry was<\/p>\n
held which was not in accordance with the procedure established<\/p>\n
by law and was in violation of the principles of natural justice. No<\/p>\n
opportunity of fair hearing or to defend his case had been granted<\/p>\n
to the plaintiff.   He was not afforded proper assistance; he was<\/p>\n
forced to sign on blank papers; the witnesses of the department<\/p>\n
were tutored; report of the enquiry officer was illegal, unjust and<\/p>\n
perverse.    The punishment order dated 16.8.1991 is liable to be<\/p>\n
set aside.\n<\/p>\n
4.    The written statement had disputed the allegations in the<\/p>\n
plaint.   It was stated that the suit was barred and liable to be<\/p>\n
dismissed under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act.                         The<\/p>\n
plaintiff being a “workman” it was the “Labour Court alone which<\/p>\n
had jurisdiction to try the present suit”.              The conduct of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff even otherwise disentitled him to any relief.<\/p>\n
5.    On the pleadings of the parties, the following four issues<\/p>\n
were framed:\n<\/p>\n
      1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for declaration
\n      alongwith consequential relief of decree for mandatory injunction
\n      as prayed for? OPP\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      2.Whether the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed in view
\n      of Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act and the plaintiff being
\n      workman labour court has the jurisdiction to try and entertain the
\n      grievance of the plaintiff as alleged in para 2 of the preliminary
\n      objection? OPD
\nRSA No.167\/2003                                                     Page 2 of 6<\/span>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (iii) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is also liable to be dismissed
\n      in view of Section 41(i) of the Specific Relief Act as alleged in para
\n      3 o the preliminary objection in the written statement ?OPD\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (iv) Relief.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
6.     The oral and documentary evidence was examined. It was<\/p>\n
held that the Civil Court has jurisdiction whenever the Enquiry<\/p>\n
Officer has acted beyond the scope of his power and there are<\/p>\n
allegations of violation of principles of natural justice. It has come<\/p>\n
on record that the delinquent had filed an appeal against the order<\/p>\n
of his punishment but the appeal remained undecided; the enquiry<\/p>\n
proceedings had taken unnecessarily long. The penalty was found<\/p>\n
to be harsh and in violation of principles of the natural justice. Suit<\/p>\n
of the plaintiff was accordingly decreed in his favour. It was<\/p>\n
directed that that the original pay scale of Rs.1130\/- be accorded to<\/p>\n
the plaintiff with other consequential reliefs.<\/p>\n
7.    In appeal vide impugned judgment dated 15.5.2003 the order<\/p>\n
of the Trial Court was upheld. Issue no.1 was dealt with in detail.<\/p>\n
On the re-examination of the oral and documentary evidence, the<\/p>\n
Court returned a fact finding that the Enquiry Officer was biased<\/p>\n
and influenced by the checking staff; the finding of the Enquiry<\/p>\n
Officer that the act of the delinquent in handing over an un-<\/p>\n
punched ticket to the checking staff amounted to an admission of<\/p>\n
guilt was an incorrect finding; there was no evidence before the<\/p>\n
Enquiry Officer to return a finding. The impugned judgment had<\/p>\n
noted that the departmental appeal had been filed by the<\/p>\n
delinquent on 25.09.1991 but even till the filing of the suit i.e. up<\/p>\n
to 25.8.1993 the same had not been disposed of. The enquiry had<\/p>\n
also remain pending for four long years, during which period the<\/p>\n
delinquent was placed under suspension.                 The judgment of the<\/p>\n
RSA No.167\/2003                                                      Page 3 of 6<\/span>
\n Trial Court was upheld.\n<\/p>\n
8.    This is a second appeal. After its admission on 25.10.2004,<\/p>\n
the following substantial questions of law were formulated; they<\/p>\n
inter alia read as follows:\n<\/p>\n
      “1.Whether the civil suit filed by the Respondent, a workman
\n      within the meaning of Section 2(S) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
\n      1947, was maintainable?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      2. Whether the report dated 10th August, 1990 passed by the
\n      Inquiry Officer could have been set aside by the Civil Court?”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
9.    The respondent had been served but in spite of service he<\/p>\n
has chosen not to appear. It is noted in the record.<\/p>\n
10.   Appellant has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex<\/p>\n
Court reported in (2008) 2 SCC 350 Chief Engineer, Hydel Project<\/p>\n
& Ors. Vs. Ravinder Nath & Ors. to substantiate his submission<\/p>\n
that the present being a case of              an “industrial dispute” the<\/p>\n
jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred. It is submitted that in<\/p>\n
the case reported in (2005) 7 SCC 447 Rajasthan SRTC Vs. Zakir<\/p>\n
Hussain    the Apex Court had clarified the nature of the reliefs<\/p>\n
which would fall within an “industrial dispute” barring the<\/p>\n
jurisdiction of the Civil Court.         Applying the ratio of the said<\/p>\n
judgment, the jurisdiction of this court is barred; the dispute raised<\/p>\n
by the delinquent is an “industrial dispute”.\n<\/p>\n
11.   It is a well settled that a Court will not normally sit in appeal<\/p>\n
over the findings arrived of by the Enquiry Officer; the Court is not<\/p>\n
to examine or re-examine the evidence adduced before the Enquiry<\/p>\n
Officer.   It is only in exceptional cases when the findings of the<\/p>\n
Enquiry Officer are perverse or opposed to the principles of natural<\/p>\n
justice that an interference is warranted by the Civil Courts.<\/p>\n
RSA No.167\/2003                                                    Page 4 of 6<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 12.   The pleadings before the Civil Court as is evident from the<\/p>\n
plaint were that the Enquiry Officer had violated the rules of<\/p>\n
natural justice; no opportunity of fair hearing has been granted to<\/p>\n
the delinquent; there was no evidence before the Enquiry Officer to<\/p>\n
draw a finding of guilt against the delinquent; all this was done<\/p>\n
with the active connivance of the officers of the checking staff of<\/p>\n
the DTC pursuant to which the delinquent had been victimized and<\/p>\n
fallen a prey to them. The punishment of reduction of his pay scale<\/p>\n
of Rs.1130\/- to the initial pay scale of Rs.950\/- was unwarranted<\/p>\n
and disproportionate to the charge levelled against the delinquent<\/p>\n
which was to the effect that delinquent in his capacity as a<\/p>\n
conductor    had    not issued tickets to the         travelling passengers.<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Transport Corporation Vs.<\/p>\n
DTC Mazdoor Congress & Ors. reported in AIR 1991 SC 101 had<\/p>\n
held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
                     “It is now well settled that the \u201eaudi alteram
\n             partem\u201f rule which is essence, enforces the equality
\n             clause in Article 14 of the Constitution is applicable not
\n             only to quasi-judicial orders but to administrative orders
\n             affecting prejudicially the party-in-question unless the
\n             application of the rule has been expressly excluded by
\n             the Act or Regulation or Rule 1 Rules of natural justice
\n             do not supplant but supplement the Rules and
\n             Regulations.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     The rights of the Government Companies and
\n             Public Corporations which are State instrumentalities
\n             within meaning of Article 14 and their employees
\n             cannot be governed by the general principle of master
\n             and servant, and the management cannot have
\n             unrestricted and unqualified power of terminating the
\n             services of the employees.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
13.   The two fact finding Courts have returned a positive finding<\/p>\n
that the principles of natural justice have been violated; the orders<\/p>\n
of the Enquiry Officer were perverse; based on no evidence; the<\/p>\n
impugned judgment had noted that there was no evidence in the<\/p>\n
nature of the testimony of a passenger or a co-passenger who could<\/p>\n
state that the delinquent was not issuing tickets.
\nRSA No.167\/2003                                                    Page 5 of 6<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 14.   The Supreme Court in the case of Chief Engineer, Hydel<\/p>\n
Project (supra) had held that where a dispute is an “industrial<\/p>\n
dispute” arising out of right or a liability under the general<\/p>\n
common law and not under the Industrial Disputes Act, the<\/p>\n
jurisdiction of the Civil Court is in alternative leaving it to the<\/p>\n
election of the suitor concerned to chose his remedy for the relief<\/p>\n
which is competent to be granted in a particular remedy.<\/p>\n
15.   In the instant case what the plaintiff had sought as is clear<\/p>\n
from the averments in the plaint is a common law remedy. He has<\/p>\n
alleged that the Enquiry Officer was prejudiced and biased, being a<\/p>\n
case of no evidence his findings are perverse and opposed and in<\/p>\n
violation of the principles of natural justice as also the principles of<\/p>\n
audi alteram partem; a fair hearing had not been granted to the<\/p>\n
delinquent. He has been a victim of malafides. Jurisdiction of the<\/p>\n
Civil court is not ousted in such a case.\n<\/p>\n
16.   Substantial question of law is answered accordingly. There<\/p>\n
is no merit in the appeal; it is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                               INDERMEET KAUR, J.\n<\/p>\n
DECEMBER 09, 2010
\nnandan<\/p>\n
RSA No.167\/2003                                            Page 6 of 6<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Delhi Transport Corporation vs Shri Subhash Chand on 9 December, 2010 Author: Indermeet Kaur R-139 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: 07.12.2010 Judgment Delivered on: 09.12.2010 + RSA No.167\/2003 DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ………..Appellant Through: Mr.J.N.Aggarwal & Mr.Mayank Joshi, Advocates. Versus SHRI SUBHASH CHAND ……….Respondent […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-66139","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDelhi Transport Corporation vs Shri Subhash Chand on 9 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-transport-corporation-vs-shri-subhash-chand-on-9-december-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Delhi Transport Corporation vs Shri Subhash Chand on 9 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-transport-corporation-vs-shri-subhash-chand-on-9-december-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-12T21:41:28+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-transport-corporation-vs-shri-subhash-chand-on-9-december-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-transport-corporation-vs-shri-subhash-chand-on-9-december-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Delhi Transport Corporation vs Shri Subhash Chand on 9 December, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-12T21:41:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-transport-corporation-vs-shri-subhash-chand-on-9-december-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1569,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-transport-corporation-vs-shri-subhash-chand-on-9-december-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-transport-corporation-vs-shri-subhash-chand-on-9-december-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-transport-corporation-vs-shri-subhash-chand-on-9-december-2010\",\"name\":\"Delhi Transport Corporation vs Shri Subhash Chand on 9 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-12T21:41:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-transport-corporation-vs-shri-subhash-chand-on-9-december-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-transport-corporation-vs-shri-subhash-chand-on-9-december-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-transport-corporation-vs-shri-subhash-chand-on-9-december-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Delhi Transport Corporation vs Shri Subhash Chand on 9 December, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Delhi Transport Corporation vs Shri Subhash Chand on 9 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-transport-corporation-vs-shri-subhash-chand-on-9-december-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Delhi Transport Corporation vs Shri Subhash Chand on 9 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-transport-corporation-vs-shri-subhash-chand-on-9-december-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-12T21:41:28+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-transport-corporation-vs-shri-subhash-chand-on-9-december-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-transport-corporation-vs-shri-subhash-chand-on-9-december-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Delhi Transport Corporation vs Shri Subhash Chand on 9 December, 2010","datePublished":"2010-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-12T21:41:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-transport-corporation-vs-shri-subhash-chand-on-9-december-2010"},"wordCount":1569,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-transport-corporation-vs-shri-subhash-chand-on-9-december-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-transport-corporation-vs-shri-subhash-chand-on-9-december-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-transport-corporation-vs-shri-subhash-chand-on-9-december-2010","name":"Delhi Transport Corporation vs Shri Subhash Chand on 9 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-12T21:41:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-transport-corporation-vs-shri-subhash-chand-on-9-december-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-transport-corporation-vs-shri-subhash-chand-on-9-december-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-transport-corporation-vs-shri-subhash-chand-on-9-december-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Delhi Transport Corporation vs Shri Subhash Chand on 9 December, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66139","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=66139"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66139\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=66139"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66139"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66139"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}