THE DEPOT MANAGER & ORS. versus SRI S. KRISHNA

Citation: [2018] 14 S.C.R. 1263 · Decided: 07-12-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1263
THE DEPOT MANAGER & ORS.
v.
SRI S. KRISHNA
(Civil Appeal No.12244 of 2018)
DECEMBER 07, 2018
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Labour Laws:
Termination of service – Of contract employee Pursuant to
holding departmental enquiry – Departmental appeal as well as
review dismissed – Industrial dispute dismissed – Writ petition
allowed by Single Judge of High Court relying on its earlier
judgment and directed the employer to re-engage the employee and
extend benefit of continuity of service from the date of termination
till the date of his re-engagement – The order of Single Judge was
affirmed by Division Bench of High Court – On appeal, held: High
Court mechanically issued directions without having regard to the
facts of individual case – The facts of the earlier case on which the
High Court had relied was distinct – Grant of continuity of service
by the High Court was misconceived.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:  1. Single Judge of High Court without having
regard to the facts of the individual cases, mechanically issued
the directions exclusively relying on the earlier decision. The
Single Judge and the Division Bench both have materially erred
in not appreciating the facts that in the present case the workman
was dismissed from service after holding the departmental enquiry
and having all the charges of misconduct proved. The earlier
decision was passed on the ground of violation of the principles
of natural justice as therein termination order was passed without
holding an enquiry. [Paras 5 and 6][1266-C-F]
2. Even otherwise such a direction cannot be issued by the
Single Judge without the termination being set aside. The ground
of continuity was not sustainable for the simple reason that unless
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 1263
1263
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1264                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
the order of termination is set aside, continuity cannot be granted.
Continuity is granted when the order of termination is set aside
to ensure there is no hiatus in service. [Para 7][1266-F-H]
3. The appellant had 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,
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. [Para 8]
[1267-A-C]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 12244
of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.07.2013 of the High Court
of  Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal No.
1344 of 2013.
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. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 24.07.2013 passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court of judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal
No.1344 of 2013 the original respondents–corporation–employer has
preferred the present appeal.
3. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:
a. That the respondent was appointed as a contract driver and
was working with the appellant corporation.
b. That he was subjected to departmental enquiry.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1265
c. That following the report of the Enquiry Officer, his service
came to be terminated.
d. That the departmental appeal also came to be rejected.
e. Review petition before the Regional Manager also came to be
rejected on merits.
f. Thereafter the original writ petitioner raised the industrial dispute
and the same came to be dismissed by the Presiding Officer,
Labour Court I, Hyderabad vide judgment and order in Industrial
Dispute No.93 of 2010.
g. Thereafter the workman-original writ petitioner approached
the High Court invoking jurisdiction of the High Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing Writ Petition
No.5632 of 2012.
h. That the learned Single Judge allowed the petition holding that
the matter was not res-integra and was cove

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