THE DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC versus M. MARUTHI

Citation: [2018] 13 S.C.R. 1216 · Decided: 07-12-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1216
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13  S.C.R.
THE DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC
v.
M. MARUTHI
(Civil Appeal No. 12241 of 2018)
DECEMBER 7, 2018
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Labour Laws – Termination – Respondent appointed as
contract conductor – Departmental enquiry initiated against him –
Found guilty – Dismissed from service – Appeal preferred by the
respondent before the First Appellate Authority, rejected  –
Respondent raised Industrial Dispute – Industrial Tribunal rejected
the reference and confirmed the order of termination – Writ Petition
filed by respondent – Allowed by Single Judge relying upon an
earlier judgment dtd. 29.02.2012 passed by the Single Judge in
another Writ Petition No. 2786 of 2012 – Writ Appeal filed by the
appellant, dismissed by Division Bench – Appellant filed  review
petition, which was dismissed – Held: Division Bench refused to
review and recall the order passed in appeal solely on the ground
that in the similar facts and circumstances the Division Bench has
dismissed the appeals – However, the Division Bench did not at all
consider the distinguishing facts in Writ Petition No.2786 of 2012
and the facts of the case on hand – When the attention of the Division
Bench was drawn to the distinguishing facts in both the cases, the
Division Bench ought to have reviewed and recalled its order,
therefore, it erred in confirming the order passed by the Single Judge
– Order passed by the Single Judge and the Division Bench quashed
– Practice & Procedure.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Division Bench refused to review and recall
the order passed in appeal solely on the ground that in the similar
facts and circumstances the Division Bench has dismissed the
appeals. However, the Division Bench did not at all consider the
distinguishing facts in Writ Petition No.2786 of 2012 and the facts
of the case on hand. As such the Division Bench ought to have
considered the facts of individual case. The Single Judge allowed
the petition, holding that the matter was not res integra and was
[2018] 13  S.C.R. 1216
1216
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1217
covered by an earlier judgment of a Single Judge dated 29.02.2012
in Writ Petition No.2786 of 2012.  Though on behalf of the
Corporation an effort was made to distinguish the earlier decision
on the ground that in the present case a full-fledged enquiry has
been held, this distinction did not find acceptance by the Single
Judge.  [Para 6][1220-B-D]
1.2  In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and
when the attention of the Division Bench was drawn to the facts
of the case on hand and the distinguishing facts in both the cases,
the Division Bench ought to have reviewed and recalled its order.
However, unfortunately the Division Bench dismissed the review
application and lost sight of the facts of the present case. The
earlier order passed by the Single Judge dated 29.02.2012 in
Writ Petition No.2786 of 2012 upon which the reliance was placed
by Single Judge while allowing the petition, in the present case
shall not be applicable at all. The Division Bench, therefore, erred
in confirming the order passed by the Single Judge.  Therefore,
the order passed by the Single Judge and the Division Bench
cannot be sustained and the same deserve to be quashed.
[Paras 10, 11][1222-C-F]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 12241
of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.07.2013 of the High Court
of  Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Review Petition in
W.A.M.P. No. 1858 of 2013 in W.A. No. 144 of 2013.
With
Civil Appeal No. 12240 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
M. R. SHAH, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order
dated 31.07.2013 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of
judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad passed in Review Petition
in W.A.M.P. No.1858 of 2013 in Writ Appeal No.144 of 2013 by which
the Division Bench has dismissed the said application and has refused to
THE DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC v. M. MARUTHI
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1218
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13  S.C.R.
review and recall its judgment and order passed in Writ Appeal No.144
of 2013, original applicant in review application has preferred the present
appeals, challenging th

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