U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus NANHE LAL KUSHWAHA

Citation: [2009] 12 S.C.R. 331 · Decided: 04-08-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009) 1 S.C.R. 331 
). 
U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION 
A 
v. 
NANHE LAL KUSHWAHA 
(Civil Appeal No. 5114 of 2009) 
AUGUST 04, 2009 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] 
t 
~ 
U.P. Industrial Disputes Act - s. 11A - Power under-
Interference with quantum of punishment -
Conductor 
charged for carrying passengers wi(hout ticket on six c 
occasions - Removal from service - Labour court reinstating 
with 75.% back wages - High Court holding that employee not 
to be paid back wages but only retiral benefits - Sustainability 
of - Held: Not sustainable - It must be spelt out in clear and 
cogent manner whether punishment is disproportionate to the 
0 
-~ 
gravity of charge - High Court passed the order without 
.. 
discussing any materials on record and also principles of law 
- Employee charged for commission of misconduct on six 
occasions but found proved for two charges - Even though 
employee has already retired and has been found guilty of a 
E 
minor offence involving a small amount, order can be 
interfered with - Thus, order of High Court set aside. 
I> ¥' 
Respondent-conductor was charged for carrying 
passengers without tickets on six occasions. Disciplinary 
F 
proceedings were initiated against him and he was 
removed from service. Industrial dispute was raised. 
Labour court directed re-instatement from the date of 
removal of service with 75% back wages since 
misconduct was proved only on two occasion. Appellant-
employer filed writ petition. Employee was re-instated and 
G 
",.\· 
has now retired from service. High Court modified the 
award to the extent that no back wages would be payable 
to the workman but would be given continuity of service 
331 
H 
332 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 12 S.C.R. 
A for the purpose of retiral benefits. Hence the present 
~ 
appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The industrial tribunal or a labour court 
B may interfere with a quantum of punishment awarded by 
the employer in exercise of its power under section 11 A 
~
of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act but, ordinarily, the 
discretion exercised by the employer should not be 
k 
~I
interfered with. Labour Court did not assign any sufficient 
c and cogent reason as to on.what premise the punishment 
imposed upon the respondent by the employer can be 
said to be excessive, keeping in view the seriousness of 
the charges. The question as to whether an order of 
punishment is disproportionate to the gravity of charge 
D on the basis whereof the workman has been found to be 
guilty, must be spelt out in a clear and cogent manner. 
•· 
The practice adopted by the High Court, in disposing of 
• 
writ petition without assigning any reason has been 
deprecated by this court number of times. [Para 7] [336-
E B-E] 
1.2. High Court despite noticing the submissions 
made on behalf of the appellant, did not choose to deal 
,.. . 
therewith. It passed the operative portion of the order 
F without discussing any mate.rials on record. Even the 
principles of law on the basis whereof the purported 
discretionary jurisdicti,on was sought to be exercised, 
was not stated. [Para 8] [33_6-F-G] 
1.3. The submission that this Court in a situation 
G where the employee has already retired and he has been 
found guilty for commission of a minor offence, should 
~ "' 
not interfere with the impugned judgment cannot be 
accepted. As the respondent was appointed as a 
conductor it is not the amount which would be very 
H material for the purpose of determining the quantum of 
U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. 
333 
NANHE LAL KUSHWAHA 
punishment. He was charged for commission of similar A 
misconducts on six occasions; at least misconduct has 
been found to be proved in 'respect of two charges even 
by the labour court. In that view of the matter, the 
impugned judgment cannot be sustained and set aside. 
[Paras 11, 12 and 13] [341-G-H; 342-A-B] 
B 
Regional Manager, U.P. SRTC, Etawah and Ors. v. Hoti 
Lal and Anr., 2003 (3) SCC 605; LK. Verma v. HMT Ltd. And 
} 
~ 
Anr., 2006 (2) SCC 269 and Divisional Controller, 
N.E.K.R. T.C. v. H. Amaresh 2006 (6) SCC 187, referred to. C 
Case Law Reference: 
2003 (3) sec 605 
2006 (2) sec 269 
2006 (6) sec 187 
Referred to 
Referred to 
Referred to 
Para 8 
Para 9 
Para 10 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
5114 of 2009. 
D 
From the Judgment & Order dated 14.8.2008 of the High 
E 
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 
30347 of 2000.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.