Full Judgment Text
NonReportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.53005301 OF 2010
Sikar Kendriya Sahkari
Bank Limited ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Bhagirath Singh (Dead)
Through L. Rs. …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1) These appeals are filed against the final
judgment and order dated 11.10.2007 and
23.01.2008 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan
at Jaipur in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.
1467 of 1997 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1418 of
1990 and Civil Application No. 194 of 2007 in D.B.
Signature Not Verified
Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1467 of 1997 in S.B.
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2018.09.24
17:03:15 IST
Reason:
1
Civil Writ Petition No. 1418 of 1990 respectively
whereby the High Court allowed the Special Appeal
and dismissed the Civil Misc. Application stating
that there is no good reason to change the earlier
order.
2) In order to appreciate the controversy involved
in these appeals, few facts need mention
hereinbelow.
3) The appellant is a Cooperative Bank having
their area of operation in District Sikar in the State
of Rajasthan. The respondentBhagirath Singh
(since dead and now represented by his legal
representatives) was appointed by the appellant
Bank on 17.09.1975 on the post of Clerk. The
appellant, however, terminated the services of the
respondent by order dated 28.03.1979.
2
4) Late Bhagirath Singh felt aggrieved by his
termination approached to the State Government
and prayed for making on Industrial Reference to
the Labour Court to decide the legality and
correctness of his termination from the services.
5) The State Government acceded to his request
and made Reference to the Labour Court, Jaipur
under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the ID Act’) on
09.04.1980. The Labour Court entertained the
Reference and called upon the parties to file their
respective statements. Parties accordingly filed their
statements.
6) The Labour Court by award dated 21.07.1984
answered the Reference in favour of Bhagirath
Singh. The Labour Court held that firstly, the
respondent had continuously worked for more than
3
240 days in one calendar year and, therefore,
entitled for protection of the labour laws; Secondly,
no enquiry was conducted by the Bank before his
termination; Thirdly, he was not paid any
retrenchment compensation as provided under
Section 25 (F) of the ID Act prior to his termination
and, therefore, it is a case of illegal termination; and
lastly, since no evidence was led by the Bank to
prove that he was gainfully employed elsewhere, he
was entitled to claim full back wages. With these
findings, the Labour Court set aside the termination
order and directed for reinstatement of Bhagirath
Singh in service with payment of full back wages.
The Bank then on 10.01.1985 allowed Bhagirath
Singh to join as Clerk and he accordingly joined the
services pursuant to the award passed by the
Labour Court.
4
7) Bhagirath Singh then filed a Civil Suit No.
61/1986 in the Court of Munsif (1st class), Sikar
against the Bank for a declaration and grant of
mandatory injunction to claim relief of seniority,
regularization and salary etc. after joining the
services. The Bank as defendant contested the suit.
By Judgment/decree dated 05.12.1989, the Civil
Judge dismissed the suit. Bhagirath Singh, felt
aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, filed writ
petition being W.P. No. 1418 of 1990 in the High
Court. The Single Judge, by order dated
13.02.1996, dismissed the writ petition. Bhagirath
Singh felt aggrieved and filed intra court appeal
(D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1467/1997)
before the Division Bench. By impugned order dated
11.10.2007, the Division Bench allowed the appeal
ex parte , set aside the order of the writ court and
5
directed the Bank to regularize the services of
Bhagirath Singh from the date when the services of
similarly situated persons were regularized and also
directed to give him consequential benefits.
Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed an
application being Civil Application No. 194 of 2007,
which was dismissed by the High Court by order
dated 23.01.2008. Feeling aggrieved by both the
orders, the Bank has filed the present appeals by
way of special leave in this Court.
8) Heard Mr. K.L. Janjani, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. M.M. Kashyap, learned counsel
for the respondent.
9) Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we
are inclined to allow the appeals and while setting
aside the order of the Division Bench remand the
case to the Division Bench for deciding the writ
6
appeal afresh on merits after affording an
opportunity to the Bank.
10) In our opinion, the need to remand the case to
the Division Bench has occasioned because, as
urged by the learned counsel for the appellant
(Bank), the Division Bench allowed the employee’s
appeal without hearing the Bank.
11) In other words, the appeal was heard ex parte
by the Division Bench without hearing the Bank
or/and its counsel which resulted in passing of an
adverse order against the Bank and, in
consequence, resulted in allowing the employee’s
writ petition by directing the Bank to give Bhagirath
Singh the benefit of regularization, seniority and
consequential benefits arising therefrom.
12) In our opinion, having regard to the facts and
circumstances arising in the case, the grounds
taken and the cause shown, the Bank was entitled
7
for a hearing before the Division Bench in the writ
appeal. It was more so because the Bank eventually
suffered adverse order without hearing them.
Substantial justice demands that a litigant is
entitled for a right to be heard before any order is
passed against him. (See Sangram Singh vs.
Election Tribunal, Kotah AIR 1955 SC 425)
13) In view of the forgoing discussion, the appeals
succeed and are accordingly allowed. Impugned
orders are set aside. The case is remanded to the
Division Bench for deciding the writ appeal out of
which these appeals arise afresh on merits in
accordance with law. Needless to say, the appellant
Bank would be entitled to raise all pleas in their
appeal before the High Court while prosecuting the
appeal.
8
14) Since the matter is quite old, we request the
High Court to decide the appeal as expeditiously as
possible preferably within six months without being
influenced by any of our observations because
having formed an opinion to remand the case to the
High Court, we did not consider it proper to go into
the merits of the controversy.
.………...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
…...……..............................…..J.
[MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR]
New Delhi;
September 24, 2018
9