Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Labhudan Manubhai Gadhvi vs Gujarat State Road Transport ... on 20 January, 2017
Bench: A.K. Sikri, R.K. Agrawal
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 740 OF 2017
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10743 of 2015)
LABHUDAN MANUBHAI GADHVI ... Appellant
VERSUS
GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ... Respondent
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The brief facts involved in the instant matter are that the appellant herein was working as a Badli worker (Bus Driver) with the respondent-Corporation since 1997. That, on 07th June, 2003, while on duty, the appellant met with an accident, as a result of which a case was registered under Section 279, 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 177 and 188 of the Motor Vehicle Act and the license of the appellant was seized. The respondent-Corporation orally terminated the appellant w.e.f. 17th March, 2004. The appellant, being aggrieved, raised industrial dispute and filed reference before the Labour Court for reinstatement and back wages relying upon Circular of the respondent Corporation dated 27th July, 1997 wherein it was provided that in case any driver is involved in vehicular accident or a Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by criminal case and his license has been cancelled/suspended, NIDHI AHUJA Date: 2017.01.28 13:29:39 IST Reason: such a driver should be given work on alternative post. The 1 Civil Appeal No. 740/ 2017 Labour Court vide Award dated 09.11.2006 reinstated the appellant in service with 25% back wages. Being aggrieved, the respondent-Corporation moved the High Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 6155 of 2007, contending that the appellant was a Badli worker (Driver) and was not having valid driving licence and that the circular dated 27 th July, 1997 is misinterpreted by the Labour Court as it applies to permanent employees and not the Badli workers.
On 16th March, 2007 the appellant was also acquitted of all the charges from the criminal case arising out of Motor Accident. Thereafter, the appellant was given back his license from the concerned authority.
While the Special Civil Application was pending before the High Court, on 28th March, 2007, the respondent Corporation issued an office order thereby giving fresh appointment to various drivers (25 employees as daily wagers) on ad-hoc basis. In the said office order, the appellant was given a fresh ad-hoc appointment as driver. The service of the appellant was regularised vide office order No. T.S. 2/2007 dated 29.12.2007 upon completion of 180 days.
The High Court, however, vide order dated 15th September, 2010 allowed the Special Civil Application filed by the respondent Corporation whereby Award dated 09th November, 2006 of the Labour Court for reinstatement and back wages was set aside, observing, inter alia:
2 Civil Appeal No. 740/ 2017
“Now so far as submission of Shri Patel, learned advocate for the respondent that he has been subsequently appointed as a Driver on permanent basis is concerned, nothing is on record. If the respondent is appointed on permanent basis after due selection subsequently and during the pendency of the petition, this Court is not concerned with the same. In the present petition this Court is required to consider legality and validity of the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court impugned in the present petition.” The respondent-Corporation on the basis of the aforesaid order passed by the High Court relieved the appellant from the services vide office order dated 11th October, 2010.
Aggrieved, the appellant, on, 01st November, 2010 filed Special Civil Application No. 14785 of 2010 with the following prayers:
“(A) Your Lordship may be pleased to admit and allow this petition, in the interest of justice;
(B) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the order dated 11.10.2010 passed by the respondent corporation relieving the petitioner from services, as being illegal, unjust, improper and bad in law and further be pleased to direct the respondent to continue the petitioner in service as per the fresh appointment and pay him regular salary, in the interest of justice;
(C) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order to direction, clarifying that the fresh appointment of the petitioner which has been regularised by the respondent corporation, cannot be terminated on the basis of the order dated 15.09.2010 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Special Civil Application No. 6155 of2007 and that the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 15.09.2010 has no concern with the fresh appointment of the petitioner;
(D) Your Lordship may be pleased to stay the implementation,operation and execution of the 3 Civil Appeal No. 740/ 2017 impugned order dated 11.10.2010 and further be pleased to direct the respondent to continue the petitioner in service and pay him regular salary, pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition;
(E) Your Lordship may graciously pleased to grant any such other and further relief as may be deem fit just and proper in the interest of justice.” The respondent Corporation filed reply affidavit averring that the appellant's name was mentioned in the list of common office order with 24 employees as daily wager by mistake and therefore it could not be stipulated in the said order that he is reinstated pursuant to award and that the office order dated 28th March, 2007 should be construed that naturally the reinstatement of the appellant was subject to the result of the Special Civil Application No. 6155 of 2007 and that vide office order dated 29 th December, 2007, the appellant was not regularly selected employee but his name was included in the regularly selected daily wagers.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the civil application filed by the appellant herein. The appellant, being aggrieved, preferred LPA No. 273 of 2013, which was also dismissed by the High Court observing:
“We find that the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the Application filed by the appellant. It is needless to mention that so long the order dated 15th September, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge, M.R. Shah, J., in Special Civil Application No. 6155 of 2007 is not set aside by appropriate Court, the appellant cannot have any right of reinstatement. We make it clear that we have not gone into the merit of the order dated 15th September, 4 Civil Appeal No. 740/ 2017 2010 passed in Special Civil Application No. 6155 of 2007.” Against this order of the High Court, the appellant has preferred the instant petition/appeal.
From the narration of facts disclosed above, it becomes apparent that the appointment order dated 28th March, 2007, vide which the appellant was appointed on temporary/daily wage basis, was a fresh appointment. It had nothing to do with the industrial dispute which was raised earlier and was pending in the High Court. As far as earlier dispute is concerned, it is clear from the facts noted above that the appellant was engaged as a badli worker/ bus driver and his services were dispensed with because of the accident which took place. Whether that termination was valid or not was a different question altogether. Even during the pendency of the Special Civil Application filed by the respondent Corporation against the Award of the Labour Court passed in favour of the appellant, the respondent took a decision to give employment to the appellant herein on temporary/ daily wage basis vide order dated 28th March, 2007 (as contrasted from the initial appointment which was given to the appellant as a badli worker). It is clear that this appointment was given to as many as 25 persons who were earlier working as badli workers. Thus, a policy decision was taken to give such badli workers appointment on daily wage basis. Not only 5 Civil Appeal No. 740/ 2017 this, after completion of 180 days work in that capacity, the respondent decided to regularize the services of these workmen including the appellant herein. This appointment on temporary/ daily wage basis and regularization thereof, had, therefore, nothing to do with the earlier appointment of the appellant which was given as a badli worker and services whereof were dispensed with.
In the circumstances noted above, it would have been a different matter had the appellant was taken into employment in compliance with the direction given for reinstatement in the Award passed by the Labour Court subject to the decision in the petition that was filed by the respondent in the High Court. However, we do not find any such position here. In these circumstances, even when the petition of the respondent was allowed by the High Court, it did not give any cause of action to the respondent to terminate the services of the appellant herein who was working on regular basis as on that date. With regularization of his services, certain rights had accrued in his favour and services of such an employee could not have been terminated by the relieving order. The High Court fell in error as it could not decipher that the new appointment given w.e.f. 28th March, 2007, was a fresh appointment which had no relevance or connection with the industrial dispute raised earlier that had reached the High Court.
6 Civil Appeal No. 740/ 2017
We, thus, set aside the impugned order of the High Court. The petition filed by the appellant in the High Court stands allowed thereby quashing the relieving order dated 11th October, 2009. The appellant shall be reinstated in services with full back wages and continuity of services. He shall also be entitled to cost of the litigation which is quantified at Rs.20,000/-.
The appeal stands disposed of.
......................., J.
[ A.K. SIKRI ] ......................., J.
[ R.K. AGRAWAL ] New Delhi;
January 20, 2017.
7 Civil Appeal No. 740/ 2017 (REVISED) ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.8 SECTION XV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 10743/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 15/07/2013 in LPA No. 273/2013 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad) LABHUDAN MANUBHAI GADHVI Petitioner(s) VERSUS GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report) Date : 20/01/2017 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL For Petitioner(s) Ms. Richa Kapoor, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Sandeep Prabhakar, Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Rawat, Adv.
Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv.
Mr. P. S. Sudheer, Adv.
Mr. Rishi Maheshwari, Adv.
Ms. Anne Mathew, Adv.
Ms. Shruti Jose, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
The appeal stands disposed of in terms of the signed order.
(Nidhi Ahuja) (Mala Kumari Sharma)
Court Master Court Master
[Signed order is placed on the file.] 8 Civil Appeal No. 740/ 2017 ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.8 SECTION XV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 10743/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 15/07/2013 in LPA No. 273/2013 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad) LABHUDAN MANUBHAI GADHVI Petitioner(s) VERSUS GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report) Date : 20/01/2017 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL For Petitioner(s) Ms. Richa Kapoor, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Sandeep Prabhakar, Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Rawat, Adv.
Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv.
Mr. P. S. Sudheer, Adv.
Mr. Rishi Maheshwari, Adv.
Ms. Anne Mathew, Adv.
Ms. Shruti Jose, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeal stands disposed of in terms of the signed order.
(Nidhi Ahuja) (Mala Kumari Sharma)
Court Master Court Master
[Signed order is placed on the file.] 9