APSRTC REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR MUSHIRABAD AND OTHERS versus A.U.M. RAO

Citation: [2018] 14 S.C.R. 1217 · Decided: 07-12-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1217
APSRTC REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING
DIRECTOR MUSHIRABAD AND OTHERS
v.
A.U.M. RAO
(Civil Appeal No. 12011 of  2018 etc.)
DECEMBER 07, 2018
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Labour Laws:
Continuity of service – Grant of – Propriety – Termination of
service of workman, after holding disciplinary proceedings – In
departmental review order for re-engagement/re-employment of the
workman – Thereafter workman filed writ petition before High Court
seeking continuity of his service – Petition allowed by Single Judge
of High Court directing continuity of service from the date of
termination till the date of re-employment – Division Bench of High
court affirmed the order of Single Judge – On appeal, held: Once
fresh appointment was given and neither the termination order nor
the fresh employment was challenged, grant of continuity of service
by the High Court was manifestly misconceived – Seniority of the
workman shall be counted with effect from the date of his fresh
appointment.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. In the present case, the workman did not choose
to assail either the termination of his services following the
enquiry or the fresh appointment. Continuity can be granted when
an order of termination is set aside, to ensure that there is no
hiatus in service. All that was sought was that he should have the
benefit of continuity of service from the date of the earlier
termination until re-engagement. Unless the order of termination
and of the fresh appointment were challenged and adjudicated
upon, seniority would necessarily have to count with effect from
the date of the fresh appointment. [Para 10, 11][1221-B-D]]
2. The appellant has recruited personnel like the present
respondent on contract after a regular process of selection.
Eventually, the contract employees are to be regularised.
Granting continuity of service to a person such as the respondent,
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 1217
1217
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1218                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
who was found to have committed misconduct, would place him
on the same footing as other contractual employees who have a
record without blemish.  Hence, once a fresh appointment was
given to the respondent and neither the termination nor the fresh
engagement was placed in issue, the grant of continuity of service
by the High Court was manifestly misconceived. The seniority of
the respondent workman shall be counted with effect from the
date of his fresh appointment in the service of the Corporation.
[Paras 12 and 15][1221-D-F; 1222-B-C]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 12011
of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.04.2013 of the High Court
of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal No. 1665
of 2012
With
Civil Appeal No. 12012 of 2018.
Gourab Banerji, Sr. Adv., Sriharsha Peechara, Arjun Krishnan,
Ashish Tiwari, Ms. Manisha Singh, Ms. Raka, C. S. N. Mohan Rao,
Tanmaya Agarwal, A. N. Arora, Raj Kishor Choudhary, Advs. for the
appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
Civil Appeal No.12011 of 2018
Leave granted.
1. This appeal arises from a judgment and order dated 25 April
2013 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra
Pradesh in Writ Appeal No.1665 of 2012.
2. By its judgment, the Division Bench affirmed the correctness
of an order dated 04 September 2012 of a learned Single Judge.
3. The facts lie in a narrow compass.
4. In February, 2007, the respondent was appointed as a driver on
contract, after undergoing a process of selection.  He was working in
the Waltair Depot in the district of  Visakhapatnam with the appellant.
5. A disciplinary enquiry was held against the workman.  Following
the report of the Enquiry Officer, his services came to be terminated.
After the dismissal of a departmental appeal, and in the course of a
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1219
departmental review, the Regional Manager issued an order for the re-
engagement of the respondent on contract on 3 February 2012.  After
his re-engagement, the respondent invoked the jurisdiction of the High
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and prayed for
continuity of service together with consequential service benefits.
6. The learned Single Judge allowed the petition, holding that the
matter was not res integra and was covered by an earlier judgment of a
learned Single Judge dated 29 February 2012 in Writ Petition No.2786
of 20

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.