Full Judgment Text
1
NON
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3861 OF 2006
The Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh
State Road Transport Corpn. & Anr. …Appellants.
Versus
V.Surender …
Respondent
O R D E R
1. The respondent was appointed as Cleaner in the
appellant-Corporation in the year 1979. In 1991, he was
unauthorisedly absent and there was no information to the
Corporation as to why he was not attending the duty. In this
view of the matter, the Corporation was constrained to issue
th
a charge sheet on 16 of May, 1991. In reply, the respondent
submitted a sickness certificate on 21.6.1991 to cover up his
absence. Since the Corporation was not satisfied with the
explanation offered by the respondent, an enquiry officer was
appointed to enquire the charges levelled against the
2
respondent and basing on report of the enquiry officer, finally
th
the respondent was removed from service on 24 of April,
1991. An industrial dispute was thereafter raised by the
respondent against the said order of removal and finally the
th
Labour Court, Hyderabad by its Award dated 12 of March,
1997 held that the orders of removal for the misconduct was
harsh and disproportionate and, therefore, could not be
sustained. The Award of the Labour Court was challenged by
the Corporation, which by the impugned order was affirmed.
However, the High Court by the impugned order directed the
Corporation not to pay 25% of the back wages. Feeling
aggrieved by the concurrent orders of the Labour Court as
well as the High Court, this SLP was filed which on grant of
leave was heard in the presence of the learned counsel for
the parties.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties
and after going through the impugned orders, we are of the
view that the order of the High Court need not be interfered
with excepting that the payment of any back wages in the
facts and circumstances should not be directed to be paid to
3
the respondent. Accordingly, we dispose of this appeal by
modifying the award of the Labour Court and by holding that
the respondent is not entitled to any back wages from the
Corporation. It is made clear that if the respondent has not
yet been reinstated, he shall be reinstated within two months
from the date of supply of a copy of this order. The appeal is
thus disposed of with the aforesaid modification. There will
be no order as to costs.
…………………
…..J.
[Tarun
Chatterjee]
New Delhi; …………………
…..J.
July 21, 2008. [Aftab Alam]
4