R. Rajender Singh Vs. Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 1011 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 11795 of 1999)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 11795 of 1999)
Petitioner: R. Rajender Singh
Respondent: Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 1011 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 11795 of 1999)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 11795 of 1999)
Judges: S.B. MAJMUDAR & Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Nov 02, 2000
Head Note:
SERVICE LAWS
Service – Termination – Labour court ordering reinstatement with continuity of service and 60 per cent back wages – High Court on writ modifying the order with regard to back wages and continuity of service. Held : On SLP court directing grant of continuity of service and declining grant of back wages.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant in the year 1975 was appointed as Cleaner in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and later he was promoted as Coach Builder. He was chargesheeted which ultimately led to his removal from service. The order of removal was, howev-er, set aside by the award of the Labour Court dated 05th Febru-ary 1992. The award directed reinstatement of the appellant with continuity of service and back-wages at 60%. The said award was subject-matter of challenge by the respondent-Corporation in a writ petition filed in the High Court. The High Court by impugned judgment dated 07th April 1997 modified the award to the extent it directed payment of back-wages and continuity of service to the appellant.
3. The appellant has challenged the order of the High Court as it results in depriving him the continuity of service and back-wages. A limited notice confined to the question of granting continuity of service to the appellant has been issued to the respondent. Having regard to the nature of the charges, learned counsel for the respondent has very fairly stated that the Corpo-ration, on the facts and circumstances of the present case, would have no objection to grant continuity of service to the appellant so long as he does not insist on back-wages, which is agreeable to the appellant. Even otherwise on the facts of the case we find no justification to deprive the appellant the continuity of service.
4. Under these circumstances, we allow this appeal and set aside the order of the High Court to the extent it declines to the appellant continuity of service. The appellant would thus be entitled to continuity of service, but, would not be entitled to back-wages. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. The appell-ant would be entitled to costs quantified at Rs. 10,000/-.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant in the year 1975 was appointed as Cleaner in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and later he was promoted as Coach Builder. He was chargesheeted which ultimately led to his removal from service. The order of removal was, howev-er, set aside by the award of the Labour Court dated 05th Febru-ary 1992. The award directed reinstatement of the appellant with continuity of service and back-wages at 60%. The said award was subject-matter of challenge by the respondent-Corporation in a writ petition filed in the High Court. The High Court by impugned judgment dated 07th April 1997 modified the award to the extent it directed payment of back-wages and continuity of service to the appellant.
3. The appellant has challenged the order of the High Court as it results in depriving him the continuity of service and back-wages. A limited notice confined to the question of granting continuity of service to the appellant has been issued to the respondent. Having regard to the nature of the charges, learned counsel for the respondent has very fairly stated that the Corpo-ration, on the facts and circumstances of the present case, would have no objection to grant continuity of service to the appellant so long as he does not insist on back-wages, which is agreeable to the appellant. Even otherwise on the facts of the case we find no justification to deprive the appellant the continuity of service.
4. Under these circumstances, we allow this appeal and set aside the order of the High Court to the extent it declines to the appellant continuity of service. The appellant would thus be entitled to continuity of service, but, would not be entitled to back-wages. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. The appell-ant would be entitled to costs quantified at Rs. 10,000/-.
