Labour Laws – Termination – Respondent appointed as contract conductor – Departmental enquiry initiated against him – Found guilty – Dismissed from service – Appeal preferred by the respondent before the First Appellate Authority, rejected – Respondent raised Industrial Dispute – Industrial Tribunal rejected the reference and confirmed the order of termination – Writ Petition filed by respondent – Allowed by Single Judge relying upon an earlier judgment dtd. 29.02.2012 passed by the Single Judge in another Writ Petition No. 2786 of 2012 – Writ Appeal filed by the appellant, dismissed by Division Bench – Appellant filed review petition, which was dismissed – Held: Division Bench refused to review and recall the order passed in appeal solely on the ground that in the similar facts and circumstances the Division Bench has dismissed the appeals – However, the Division Bench did not at all consider the distinguishing facts in Writ Petition No.2786 of 2012 and the facts of the case on hand – When the attention of the Division Bench was drawn to the distinguishing facts in both the cases, the Division Bench ought to have reviewed and recalled its order, therefore, it erred in confirming the order passed by the Single Judge – Order passed by the Single Judge and the Division Bench quashed – Practice & Procedure.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Division Bench refused to review and recall the order passed in appeal solely on the ground that in the similar facts and circumstances the Division Bench has dismissed the appeals. However, the Division Bench did not at all consider the distinguishing facts in Writ Petition No.2786 of 2012 and the facts of the case on hand. As such the Division Bench ought to have considered the facts of individual case. The Single Judge allowed the petition, holding that the matter was not res integra and was covered by an earlier judgment of a Single Judge dated 29.02.2012 in Writ Petition No.2786 of 2012. Though on behalf of the Corporation an effort was made to distinguish the earlier decision on the ground that in the present case a full-fledged enquiry has been held, this distinction did not find acceptance by the Single Judge. [Para 6][1220-B-D]
1.2 In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and when the attention of the Division Bench was drawn to the facts of the case on hand and the distinguishing facts in both the cases, the Division Bench ought to have reviewed and recalled its order. However, unfortunately the Division Bench dismissed the review application and lost sight of the facts of the present case. The earlier order passed by the Single Judge dated 29.02.2012 in Writ Petition No.2786 of 2012 upon which the reliance was placed by Single Judge while allowing the petition, in the present case shall not be applicable at all. The Division Bench, therefore, erred in confirming the order passed by the Single Judge. Therefore, the order passed by the Single Judge and the Division Bench cannot be sustained and the same deserve to be quashed. [Paras 10, 11][1222-C-F]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.