NORTH EAST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus M.NAGANGOUDA

Citation: [2007] 1 S.C.R. 282 · Decided: 09-01-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
NORTH EAST KARNAT AKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION 
v. 
M.NAGANGOUDA 
JANUARY 9, 2007 
B 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND ALTAMAS KABIR, JJ.] 
Labour laws: 
Full Back wages-Entitlement fer-During period of termination, 
C 
workman engaged in agricultural work and receiving certain income 
therefrom-Labour Court held that Income so received could not be 
equated with income from gainful employment-Justification of-Held, not 
justified- 'Gainful employment' would also include self-employment 
wherefrom income is generated-Income either from employment in an 
D 
establishment or from self-employment merely differentiates the sources 
from which income is generated, the end use being the same. 
E 
Words and phrases: 
'Gainful employment '---Connotation of-Explained. 
Respondent-workman was found guilty of misconduct and was dismissed 
from service. Labour Court ordered his reinstatement into service with full 
back wages. Aggrieved Appellant-Corporation filed writ petition. High 
Court dismissed the Writ Petition holding that the management had not 
F 
been able to establish that the respondent was engaged in any gainful 
employment d11ring the period of dismissal and that since the misconduct 
was not proved, there could be no justification in denying grant of back 
wages and that the conclusion arrived at by the Labour Court was neither 
perverse nor arbitrary. Hence the present appeal. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The reasoning of the Labour Court that the Income received 
by the respondent from agricultural pursuits could not be equated with 
income from gainful employment in any establishment cannot be accepted. 
H 
"Gainful employment" would also include self-employment wherefrom 
282 
+ \.... 
I 
t= 
_ .. 
.-1. 
) 
NORTH EAST KARNATAKA ROAD TPT. CORPN. v. M. NAGANGOUDA [KABIR, J.] 
283 
income is generated. Income either from employment in an establishment 
A 
or from self-employment merely differentiates the sources from which 
income is generated, the end use being the same. Since the respondent was 
earning some amount from his agricultural pursuits to maintain himself, 
the Labour Court was not justified in holding that he could not be treated 
to be engaged in "gainful employment." [Para 17) [287-B-D) 
B 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 129 of2007. 
From the Judgment and final Order dated 1. 7.2005 of the High Court 
ofKamataka at Bangalore in W.A. No. 2446/2005. 
Basava Prabhu S. Patil, V.N. Raghupathy, B. Subrahmanya Prasad and 
Narayan P. Kengasur for the Appellant. 
G. V. Chandrashekar and Anj ana Chandrashekar for the 
Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ALT AMAS KABIR, J. : 1. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 
1st July, 2005 passed by the High Court of Kamataka at Bangalore in Writ 
Appeal No. 2446/2005 choosing not to interfere with the findings recorded 
in the award of the Tribunal as also the order of the learned Single Judge 
that on account of the forced idleness of the respondent-workman, 
he 
would be entitled to full back wages on reinstatement. 
3. For a proper appreciation of the order passed by the Tribunal and 
the High Court, it is necessary to set out a few facts in brief. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
4. The respondent-workman was working as a Conductor of Kudligi 
G 
Depot of the appellant-corporation. On 5th October, 1980, while the said 
respondent was on duty in vehicle No.MYF-2613 plying between Hadagali 
to Medalagatta, the said bus came to be checked by the Central Line 
Checking Squad, Bangalore at Medalgatta Stage No.3. The allegation 
against the respondent is that he had failed to issue tickets of 0.90 paise 
H 
284 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] I S.C.R. 
A 
denomination to four passengers despite collection of requisite fare at the 
boarding point. 
On the basis of the report submitted by the Checking 
Squad, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent and 
he was served with Articles of Charges. The respondent filed his written 
statement of defence denying the charges levelled against him. However, 
B 
the disciplinary authority was not satisfied with the defence taken by the 
respondent and appointed the Assistant Traffic Manager as Enquiring 
Authority to conduct an enquiry against the respondent. 
5. Enquiry was duly conducted on 21st January, 1981 and on the 
materials available, the Enquiring Authority held the respondent to be guilty 
C 
of misconduct. Accepting the repo

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