UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus GAJADHAR NATH

Citation: [2021] 9 S.C.R. 394 · Decided: 08-12-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HEMANT GUPTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
394
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
   [2021] 9 S.C.R. 394
394
UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION
v.
GAJADHAR NATH
(Civil Appeal No. 7536 of 2021)
DECEMBER 08, 2021
[HEMANT GUPTA AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Misconduct – Respondent-
workman removed from service as conductor – Order of removal
set aside by Tribunal – Confirmed by High Court – Held: Tribunal
or High Court could not reject the evidence led by the appellant-
employer in respect of misconduct of the workman before the
adjudicator – Non lodging of FIR cannot be the circumstance
against the witness examined by the employer – Initiation/non-
initiation of criminal proceedings against an employee has no
bearing to prove misconduct in departmental proceedings – Order
of removal from service not unfair or unjust in any manner – Orders
of the High Court and Tribunal set aside – Order of punishment
restored – Evidence Act, 1872.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. The domestic inquiry conducted can be
permitted to be disputed before the Tribunal in terms of Section
11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. [Para 5][397-E]
Workmen of M/s Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India
(P.) Ltd. v. Management & Ors. (1973) 1 SCC 813 :
[1973] 3 SCR 587 – relied on.
2.The order of the Tribunal and that of the High Court are
clearly erroneous and not sustainable in law. The representative
of the employer has not been cross-examined on the question
that he has not inspected the bus on 12.11.1998. He has deposed
that when he tried to record the statements of the passengers,
the conductor misbehaved with him and used unruly words. Even
that part of the statement has not been disputed in the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
395
crossexamination. Therefore, the fact that the Assistant Traffic
Inspector was not able to record the names and addresses of the
passengers cannot be said to be unjustified. Since the passengers
are low-fare paying passengers, they might have been hesitant
to get involved in the issues of any action against the conductor.
The Inspector had found that 17 passengers were not issued
tickets and such statement of the Inspector has also not been
disputed in the cross examination. The Tribunal or the High Court
could not reject the evidence led by the employer in respect of
misconduct of the workman before the adjudicator. Still further
non lodging of FIR cannot be the circumstance against the witness
examined by the employer. The initiation of criminal proceedings
against an employee or not initiating the proceedings has no
bearing to prove misconduct in departmental proceedings.
Therefore, the order of removal from service cannot be said to
be unfair and unjust in any manner which would warrant an
interference at the hands of the Tribunal and the High Court.
The three reasons recorded by the Tribunal are absolutely
perverse and not supported by any evidence. The Tribunal had
misapplied the basic principles of law and the High Court has
thereafter wrongly confirmed the order. The orders of the High
Court and of the Tribunal are set aside. The order of punishment
dated is restored. [Paras 11, 12][403-A-F]
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Smt.
Lakshmidevamma & Anr. AIR 2001 SC 2090 – followed.
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Suresh Chand
Sharma (2010) 6 SCC 555: [2010] 7 SCR 239 – relied
on.
Shambhu Nath Goyal v. Bank of Baroda & Ors. (1983)
4 SCC 491 : [1984] 1 SCR 85; Rajendra Jha v.
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City,
District Dhanbad & Anr. 1984 Supp. SCC 520; State
of Haryana & Anr. v. Rattan Singh (1977) 2 SCC 491 –
referred to.
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation through M.D.
& Ors. v. Rajendra Prasad 2019 SCC OnLine All 5152
– referred to.
UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION v. GAJADHAR NATH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
396
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
Case Law Reference
[1973] 3 SCR 587
relied on
Para 5
[1984] 1 SCR 85
referred to
Para 6
[2010] 7 SCR 239
relied on
Para 8
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.7536
of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.01.2021 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ-C No.51777 of 2009.
Nishit Agrawal, Harsh Mishra, Ms. Upasha Agrawal, Advs. for
the Appellant.
Nagarkatti Kartik Uday, Gaurav Srivastava, Advs. for the
Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
Leave granted.
2. The order dated 20.1.2021 passed by the High Court of
Allahabad is the subject matter of chal
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.