Back
2017 Supreme(SC) 1538
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SIKRI, R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.
Labhudan Manubhai Gadhvi - Petitioner
Versus
Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 740 of 2017
Decided on : 20-01-2017
For the Petitioner:Ms. Richa Kapoor, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Sandeep Prabhakar, Mr. Sanjay Rawat, Mr. Amit Kumar, Mr. P.S. Sudheer, Mr. Rishi Maheshwari, Ms. Anne Mathew and Ms. Shruti Jose, Advocates.
The regularization of services on a daily wage basis created rights for the employee, and the termination based on a new appointment unrelated to the industrial dispute was erroneous.
Headnote:
Badli Worker - Employment Dispute - Indian Penal Code, Section 279, 304(A); Motor Vehicle Act, Section 177, 188 - The court discussed the interpretation of a circular providing for work on alternative post for drivers involved in accidents or criminal cases, and the regularization of services of badli workers on a daily wage basis. The decision highlighted the rights accrued to the employee upon regularization and the error in terminating the services based on a new appointment unrelated to the industrial dispute.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a Badli worker (Bus Driver), was involved in an accident and subsequently terminated by the respondent-Corporation. The appellant raised an industrial dispute for reinstatement and back wages, which was initially granted by the Labour Court but later set aside by the High Court. The appellant filed a petition seeking reinstatement and challenging the relieving order issued by the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's fresh appointment on a daily wage basis and its regularization were unrelated to the earlier industrial dispute. The High Court's decision to set aside the reinstatement and back wages was erroneous, and the appellant's services should not have been terminated based on the new appointment.
Issues: Interpretation of the circular regarding work on alternative post for drivers involved in accidents or criminal cases; Validity of termination based on a new appointment unrelated to the industrial dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: The regularization of services on a daily wage basis created rights for the employee, and the termination based on a new appointment unrelated to the industrial dispute was erroneous.
Final Decision: The court set aside the High Court's order, allowed the appellant's petition, and directed the reinstatement of the appellant with full back wages and continuity of services, along with the entitlement to the cost of litigation.
ORDER :
Leave granted.
2. 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 criminal case and his license has been cancelled/suspended, such a driver should be given work on alternative post. The 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 27th July, 1997 is misinterpreted by the Labour Court as it applies to permanent employees and not the Badli workers.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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:
"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."
6. 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.
7. 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 Sp
