CourtKutchehry.com
Supreme CourtDivision Bench(1998) 07 SC CK 0078

A.P.S.R.T.C. represented by Depot Manager vs K. Pochaiah and Another

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 24 July 1998 · Citation: AIR 1999 SC 2638 : (1999) AIRSCW 1851 : (1999) 2 LLJ 976 : (1999) 1 SCC 191 : (1999) SCC(L&S) 195

HON’BLE JUDGES
V. N. Khare, J · S. P. Bharucha, J
RESULT
dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Appeal No. 3510 of 1998 Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5931 of 1998
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 317 words
1.

Leave granted.

2.

The respondents have been served but have not put in an appearance.

3.

The first respondent was employed by the appellants as a driver. He was found to be a habitual absentee. He was issued a charge-sheet for his indiscipline. A domestic enquiry was held. He was found guilty and he was removed from service. He challenged the order of dismissal by raising a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act. The second respondent upheld the order of dismissal.

4.

The first respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court assailing the order of the second respondent. The High Court said:

Having perused the impugned award, we hold that the award of the Labour Court is well considered one both in respect of conviction and punishment. However, purely on compassionate grounds, we direct the corporation to appoint the petitioner as cleaner afresh if he is willing within three months from the date of receipt of the order.

5.

The appellants are in appeal by special leave and contend that once the High Court had come to the conclusion that the order of dismissal of the first respondent was justified, it had no jurisdiction or power to issue the direction to appoint the first respondent as a cleaner on compassionate grounds. We are entirely in agreement with the appellants contention. It is one thing to find that the punishment is disproportionate to the indiscipline and to reduce the severity thereof. It is quite another to hold that the punishment was justified and yet to direct the employer to reemploy the delinquent employee. The High Court does not have the jurisdiction or the power to do so, on compassionate grounds or otherwise.

6.

The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order under appeal is set aside insofar as it directs the appellants to re-appoint the first respondent in their service. No order as to costs.