THE DEPOT MANAGER versus SRI R. K. REDDY

Citation: [2018] 14 S.C.R. 1236 · 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
1236                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
THE DEPOT MANAGER
v.
SRI R. K. REDDY
(Civil Appeal No. 12245 of 2018)
DECEMBER 07, 2018
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Labour Laws: Termination of service – Re-engagement and
continuity of service – On facts, termination of employee on contract,
after charges of misconduct stood proved in a departmental enquiry
– Said order upheld in departmental appeal, appeal before regional
manager and the labour court – In writ petition by workman, the
Single Judge of the High Court relying on the order in earlier case
directed the employer-appellants to re-engage the employee in
service and extend the benefit of continuity of service from date of
the earlier termination until re-engagement – Said order upheld by
the Division Bench – On appeal, held: Single Judge without having
regard to the facts of the individual cases, mechanically issued the
directions exclusively relying on the earlier decision – Single Judge
and the Division Bench materially erred in not appreciating that
the facts in the instant case and the decision relied upon were different
– Even otherwise such a direction could not be issued by the Single
Judge without the termination being set aside – Continuity can be
granted when the order of termination is set aside to ensure there is
no hiatus in service – Thus, the order passed by the Single Judge as
well as the Division Bench set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Single Judge 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 materially erred in not appreciating the facts
that in the instant case the workman was dismissed from service
after holding the departmental enquiry and having all the charges
of misconduct proved, that was not so in the decision relied upon.
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.1236
1236
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1237
the order of termination is set aside, continuity cannot be granted.
Continuity can be granted when the order of termination is set
aside to ensure there is no hiatus in service. [Para 5, 7]
[1239-D-E; 1240-A]
1.2 The appellant has recruited personnel like the instant
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]
[1240-A-C]
1.3 There is considerable degree of merit in the submission
that in deciding the entire batch of cases by a common order, the
Single Judge as well as the Division Bench unfortunately lost
sight of the facts of each individual case. The judgment and order
passed by the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench is set
aside. [Para 9][1240-C-E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 12245
of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.06.2013 of the High Court
of  Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal No. 690
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 14.06.2013 passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal
No.690 of 2013 the original respondents – corporation – employer has
preferred the present appeal.
THE DEPOT MANAGER v. SRI R.K. REDDY
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1238                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
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 department

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