Delhi High Court
Deutsche Lufthansa Ag vs Ms Manisha Thakur & Ors on 7 November, 2025
$~41
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 07.11.2025
+ W.P.(C) 6021/2023 & CM APPLs. 23602/2023, 1564/2024
DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA AG .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Prapti Allagh, Advocate
versus
MS MANISHA THAKUR & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Mohan Bir Singh, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
1. The present writ petition is directed against Annexure P-1
order dated 02.05.23 passed by the Learned Presiding Officer,
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum Labour Court II,
Delhi (the Tribunal) under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, whereby the petitioner's request to adduce evidence
was declined and enquiry proceedings were held to be vitiated.
2. The brief facts leading to the impugned order are as follows:
W.P.(C) 6021/2023 Page 1
2.1. The respondent was employed as a Cabin Crew with
the petitioner since 05.12.2008. Her service was confirmed
with effect from 25.06.2009. On 28.01.2020, a show cause
notice was issued to her alleging: (i) that she had posted a
picture of herself displaying her Lufthansa Airlines ID on
social media, and (ii) that she had misrepresented her health
condition by reporting sick on 28.04.2019 and 15.09.2019 and
yet attended an event during the said days.
2.2. In her reply, the respondent denied the allegations. A
suspension order was issued on 07.02.2020. Thereafter, on
19.05.2021, a second show cause notice was served upon the
respondent along with a copy of the enquiry report. It was
stated that the charges against her stood proved.
3. Subsequently, her services were terminated vide order dated
08.06.2021. Aggrieved, she filed Complaint No. 119/2021 under
Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act on the ground that her
service conditions had been altered during the pendency of
W.P.(C) 6021/2023 Page 2
Industrial Dispute No. 05/2018, raised by the Lufthansa Cabin
Crew Association, of which she was a member. In the said
complaint, the respondent alleged violation of section 33 of the
Act. The petitioner's defence before the Tribunal was that there
was no violation of Section 33 or 33(2) and that the enquiry was
fair and proper and that the respondent had admitted her conduct
during the enquiry.
4. Issue No.2 regarding the fairness of the inquiry and as to
whether principles of natural justice has been followed in the
domestic enquiry against the respondent was taken up as a
preliminary issue and after evidence was received, the Impugned
order was passed, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:
"There is an application filed by the mgt seeking
permission. To adduce evidence to prove the charge; in
case the domestic inquiry is held vitiated. But in my
considered view, in this proceeding the opportunity of
proving the charge cannot be given to the mgt since it is
a proceeding filed by the claimant u/s 33A of the ID Act
and the domestic inquiry or the proportionality of the
punishment. Has not been questioned.
W.P.(C) 6021/2023 Page 3
Hence, the matter is adjourned to 11.07.2023 for
argument to be adduced by both the parties on issue no.
1 & 3 framed by order dated 02.06.2022, which shall
include the objection of the mgt with regard to the
status of the claimant if a workman or not."
5. Aggrieved the petitioner has come up with the Writ Petition.
6. When the matter was taken up for hearing, it was fairly
conceded by the learned counsel for the Respondent that as the
matter has been pending since 2021 and as the Respondent stands
terminated w.e.f 05.06.2021, there may not be further delay in
disposing the matter and that he has no objection in the Petitioner/
management being given an opportunity to adduce evidence as
sought for by them. He also submits that a time frame may be fixed
within which time, the matter should be disposed of by the
Tribunal.
7. In light of the submissions made, this court is not going into
the merits of the case. Hence the Impugned order is set aside
giving liberty to the Petitioner/management to adduce evidence
and substantiate their contention(s). On adducing such evidence,
W.P.(C) 6021/2023 Page 4
the Respondent herein is also at liberty to adduce necessary
evidence to rebut the same. Thereafter, the tribunal shall dispose of
the matter, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at
any rate within a period of 3 months of receiving this order.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)
NOVEMBER 7, 2025
p'ma/ns
W.P.(C) 6021/2023 Page 5
