Termination for Insubordination Upheld Despite Absence of Domestic Inquiry

Case Details: Yoginder Sharma vs. Management of Aravali Leasing Ltd. [2026] 186 taxmann.com 589 (HC-Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

V. Kameswar Rao & Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ.
H. K. Chaturvedi, Sagar Chaturvedi & Mrs Anjali Chaturvedi, Advs. for the Appellant.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the appellant-workman was terminated by the respondent/management for alleged misconduct, i.e., refusal to comply with instructions to collect payments from customers, which was stated to be part of his routine duties.

The appellant asserted a violation of the principles of natural justice due to the absence of a domestic inquiry prior to termination. In an industrial dispute, the respondent/management examined witnesses who were cross-examined on behalf of the appellant, and on appraisal of the evidence, the Labour Court held that the charge stood proved and passed an award upholding termination.

In the writ petition, the appellant reiterated the plea of violation of natural justice; the single judge rejected the submissions and dismissed the writ petition, affirming the Labour Court’s award.

It was noted that, since the respondent/management had examined witnesses and proved the charge against the appellant before the Labour Court, the plea that the termination violated the principles of natural justice was clearly unsustainable.

Further, it was noted that since part of the duty of the appellant was to collect money from the company’s clients and the appellant’s refusal to obey orders given by the respondent/management, depicted insubordination on the part of the appellant, the penalty of termination would be justified.

High Court Held

The High Court held that since the judgment of the Supreme Court covered the issue in the case of R. Thiruvirkolam v. Presiding Officer (1997) 1 SCC 9, the appellant was not entitled to back wages by treating dismissal as effective from the date of the award of the Labour Court instead of the date of dismissal. Thus, Single Judge was justified in dismissing writ petition.