THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER APSRTC & ANR. versus B. VENKATAIAH

Citation: [2018] 14 S.C.R. 1257 · Decided: 07-12-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1257
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER APSRTC & ANR.
v.
B. VENKATAIAH
(Civil Appeal No. 12246 of 2018)
DECEMBER 07, 2018
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Labour Laws: Continuity of service – Benefit of – On facts,
respondent appointed as driver on contract – Allegation of
misconduct – Disciplinary enquiry against workman – Termination
from service – However in departmental review, workman granted
fresh appointment/re-engagement – Writ petition by workman seeking
continuity of service from date of the earlier termination until re-
engagement – Allowed by the Single Judge of the High Court relying
on the order in earlier case – Upheld by the Division Bench – On
appeal, held: Continuity can be granted when an order of
termination is set aside, to ensure that there is no hiatus in service –
On facts, workman did not choose to assail either the termination
of his services following the enquiry or the fresh appointment –
Hence, once a fresh appointment was given to the respondent and
neither the termination nor the fresh engagement was challenged,
the grant of continuity of service by the High Court was
misconceived – Furthermore, the Single Judge as well as the Division
Bench lost sight of the facts of each individual case.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The order of the Single Judge was exclusively
based on the earlier decision dated 29.02.2012. The judgment of
the Single Judge indicates that the earlier case also dealt with
persons who were working as contract employees who were
appointed after a regular selection. In some cases, termination
orders were passed without an enquiry on allegations of
misconduct while in other cases, an enquiry was conducted.
[Para 7][1260-E-F]
1.2 In the instant case, the workman did not choose to assail
either the termination of his services following the enquiry or
the fresh appointment. All that was sought was that he should
have the benefit of continuity of service from the date of the earlier
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 1257
1257
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1258                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
termination until re-engagement. Such a direction could not have
been issued by the Single Judge without the termination being
put into question. Grant of continuity was not sustainable for the
simple reason that unless the order of termination and of the
fresh appointment were challenged and adjudicated upon,
seniority would necessarily have to count with effect from the
date of the fresh appointment. As a matter of principle, continuity
can be granted when an order of termination is set aside, to ensure
that there is no hiatus in service. [Para 8, 9][1261-F-H; 1262-A]
1.3 The appellant 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 10]
[1262-A-B]
1.4 The earlier order of the Single Judge was in a batch of
cases, where termination orders were issued without holding an
enquiry in certain cases and after holding an enquiry in others,
though in violation of the principles of natural justice. It was in
that view of the matter that the direction contained in the
operative order provided that in cases where no enquiry was
conducted, the Corporation would be at liberty to conduct an
enquiry in accordance with law, on the allegations of misconduct.
There is a 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. [Para 11, 12][1262-C-F]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 12246
of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.12.2013 of the High Court
of  Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal No.
1959 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.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H

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