Summary
The Supreme Court set aside directions to re-engage a dismissed contract driver and grant continuity for regularisation purposes. His dismissal followed a departmental enquiry, rejected departmental challenges and an unsuccessful industrial dispute. The High Court mechanically extended a prior ruling without addressing these facts. Continuity could not be awarded while the termination remained in force.
Issues
- Whether re-engagement and continuity were justified by mechanical reliance on a prior batch ruling despite the employee’s disciplinary history.
Held
- The respondent had undergone a departmental enquiry and failed in the departmental appeal, review and industrial dispute. The High Court overlooked those individual facts when applying the earlier decision. (¶¶ 3, 5, 9)
- The earlier ruling involved cases without enquiry or with natural-justice defects. Its directions did not justify the result without examining the circumstances of this case. (¶¶ 5, 6)
- Continuity required the termination to be set aside so as to remove the service hiatus. Granting it despite the subsisting misconduct outcome was also inconsistent with the position of contractual employees having unblemished records. (¶¶ 7, 8)
- The Single Judge and Division Bench directions were therefore set aside. (¶ 10)
Result
Corporation’s appeal allowed without costs; High Court appellate and Single Judge orders directing re-engagement and continuity set aside.