THE DEPOT MANAGER A.P.S.R.T.C. versus P. JAYARAM REDDY

Citation: [2008] 17 S.C.R. 1185 · Decided: 18-12-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 17 S.C.R. 1185 
THE DEPOT MANAGER A.P.S.R.T.C. 
v. 
P. JAYARAM REDDY 
(Civil Appeal No. 7406 of 2008) 
DECEMBER 18, 2008 
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
LABOUR LAW: 
A 
B 
Back wages - A conductor appointed on casual basis 
removed from service on the charge of misconduct -
C 
Appointed again in an open recruitme_nt - Dismissed from 
service for concealing the fact of earlier employment- Labour 
Court ordered reinstatement but without back wages - High 
Court allowing back wages - Held: High Court was bound to 
consider as to whether it should interfere with discretionary o 
jurisdiction exercised by Labour Court - Order of High Court 
amounted tg misdirection in law and is set aside. 
The respondent, a conductor appointed by the 
appellant Corporation on casual basis, was removed 
from service for misconduct relating to sale of tickets and E 
.-other irregularities. He again applied for and was 
-...-- appointed as conductor in an open recruitment. Later, 
when it came to light that the respondent had concealed 
the fact of his previous employment with the Corporation 
and removal therefrom, a charge-sheet was issued to him 
and departmental proceedings were initiated, which F 
culminated in his dismissal from service. The workman 
filed an application before the Labour Court, which 
,r 
although opined that the disciplinary proceedings were / 
valid and proper, yet, relying on a decision of. the High 
Court that there being no column in the application form G 
to furnish information with regard to previous 
employment no misconduct could be said to have been 
committed by the employee, directed reinstatement with . 
all benefits except full back wages. The writ petition filed 
1185 
H 
1186. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 17 S.C.R. 
A by the workman claiming back wages was allowed by the 
single Judge. The intra-court appeal filed by the employer 
having been dismissed by the Division Bench of the High 
Court, he filed the appeal. 
B 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1.1. It may be that the respondent had no duty 
to furnish information about his previous employment, 
but the order of appointment was passed in ignorance 
of the fact that his services had been terminated on the 
charges of grave misconduct. An order of removal from 
C services has some consequences. Although on general 
principle, an order of removal may not bar future 
employment but, indisputably, the same w9uld mean 
causing vacation of office as a result of misconduct or 
misbehaviour or any other si'!'ilar cause. In a case wher~ 
0 
an employee occupying a position of trust is removed 
from the office, a loss of confidence in him may occur. 
Had the appellant, therefore, any knowledge~thereabout, 
the employee might not have been reappointed at all. 
[Para 10 and 12] [1191-A-B-E] 
E 
Dr. Dattatraya Mahadev Nadkarni since deceased by His 
L.Rs. vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (1992)·2 
sec 547, referred to. 
1.2. The Labour Court considered the entire matter, 
and opined that the punishment of removal from service 
F imposed upon the respondent was 'very much harsh, 
disproportionate and unjustified'. There is no finding that 
the order of removal was wholly illegal and, thus, void ab . 
initio. The validity and/or legality of the domestic enquiry 
was upheld. Therefore, the High Court was bound to 
consider as to whether it should interfere with such a 
G discretionary jurisdiction exercised by the Labour Court. 
H 
It has not been found by the High Court that the 
discretionary jurisdiction exercised by the Labour Court 
was otherwise arbitrary or perverse. The judgment 
passed by the High Court, therefore, amou_nted to 
) 
i 
THE DEPOT MANAGERA.P.S.R.T.C. v. P. JAYARAM 
1187 
REDDY 
misdirection in law, and is set aside. [Para 13 and 18] 
A 
[1191-F; 1192-C; 1194-G] 
P. G. I. of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh vs. 
Raj Kumar (2001) 2 SCC 54; State of Rajasthan & ors. Vs. 
Sujata Malhotra (2003) 9 SCC 286; J.K. Synthetics Ltd. vs. 
K.P. Agrawal & Anr. (2007) 2 SCC 433; Amrit Vanaspati Co. 
B 
Ltd. v. Khem Chand and Anr. (2006) 6 SCC 325 and 
U.P.S.R. T.C. Vs: Ram Kishan Arora (2007) 4 SCC 627, 
referred to. 
2. It has to be taken into consideration that the 
respondent did not join the service of the appellant c 
pursuant to the award of reinstatement. He obtained an 
alternative employment. However, the amount already 
paid by way of back wages may not be recovered from 
the respondent. [Paras 17 and 18]
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.