JORSINGH GOVIND VANJARI versus DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER MAHARASHTRA, STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JALGAON DIVISION, JALGAON

Citation: [2016] 11 S.C.R. 219 · Decided: 06-12-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] II S.C.R.219 
JORSINGH GOVIND VANJARI 
v. 
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER MAHARASHTRA, STATE ROAD 
TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JALGAON DIVISION, 
JALGAON 
(Civil Appeal No. 11807of2016) 
DECEMBER 06, 2016 
(KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. }'. NARIMAN, JJ.) 
Service Lmv: 
Termination - On charges of misconduct - Chal/e11ge to -
Back wages - Gratuity - Allegation that while working as a bus 
conductor. appellant had collected fare from six passengers, without 
issuii1g tickets - Inquiry officer found him guilty - He was terminated 
from service - Labour court set aside the order of dismissal -
However, as appellant had already crossed the age of 
siperannuation, instead of reinstatemellt, 50% of the back wages 
from date of termination till the date of superannuation with all 
other service benefits were gramed by the Labour court - High 
Court modified the m1,ard by graming one time compensation of an 
amount equivalent to 50% of the back wages as awarded by Labour 
court but did not grant gratuity - On appeal, held: Labour court, 
on available materials on record, found that the termination was 
unjustified on basis of perverse finding entered by the inquiry 
officer - Despite grant of opportunity, 110 evidence was adduced 
by the 111anageme111 to establish othen1•ise - Therefore, Labour court 
cannot be faulted for answering the reference in favour of the 
appellant - High Court itself gramed compensation as it felt that 
the termination was unjustified and reinstatement was not 
possible - Appellant entitled to gratuity in respect of his co111inuous 
service from his original appoi11tme11t till the date of his 
superannuation - Judgment of High Court not sustainable and 
award of Labour court restored 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. On facts, it is clear that the High Court has gone 
wrong in holding that the Labour Court did not follow the 
procedure. It is seen from the award that the management had 
219 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
/ 
220 
A 
B 
c 
D 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[20161 11 S.C.R. 
not sought for an opportunity for leading evidence. And despite 
granting an opportunity, 110 evidence was adduced after the Labour 
Court held that the findings of the inquiry officer were perverse. 
Therefore, the Labour Court cannot be faulted for answering the 
Reference in favour of the a1ipellant. [Para 14] (226-A-B) 
2. The Labour Court, on the available materials on record, 
found that the termination was unjustified on the basis of a 
perverse finding entered by the inquiry officer. There was no 
attem11t on the part of the management before the Labour Court 
to establish othenvise. [Para 15] [226-B-C] 
3 .. It appears that the High Court itself has granted 
compensation since the Court felt that the termination was 
unjustified and since reinstatement was not possible on account 
of superannuation. In case, the High Court was of the view that 
termination was justified, it could not have ordered for payment 
of any compensation. [Para 16] [226-C-DJ 
4. In order to deny gratuity to an employee, it is not enough 
that the alleged misconduct of the employee constitutes an offence 
involving moral turpitude as per the report of the domestic inquiry. 
There must be termination on account of the alleged misconduct, 
which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude. 
E Consequently, tlae appellant shall be entitled to gratuity in rc'!pect 
of his continuous service from his original appointment till the 
date of his superannuation. (Paras 17, 18] (226-D-F) 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 11807 
of2016. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.07.2015 of the High Court 
9f Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No. 
3268of2014. 
Uday B. Dube, Adv. for the Appellants. 
G 
R. S. Hegde, Ms. Farhat Jahan Rehmani, Chandra Prakash, Rajeev 
1-1 
Singh, Advs. for the Respondent. 
KURIAN, J. I. Leave granted. 
2. The appellant, aggrieved by the termination from service, iaised 
an industrial dispute leading to the award in Refererice'IDA No. 42 of 
JORSINGH GOVIND VANJARI v. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER 
MAHARASHTRA. SRTC, JALGAON DIVISION, JALGAON (KURIAN, J.] 
2007 dated 20.06.2013 of the Labour Court, Jalgaon, Maharashtra. The 
Labour Court set aside the dismissal order dated 26.08.2002. However, 
noticing that the appellant had already crossed the date of superannuation, 
viz., 31.05.2005, it was ordered that from the date of termination to the 
date of superannuation, the appellant would be entitled to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.