Summary
The Supreme Court set aside High Court directions to re-engage a dismissed contract conductor with continuity for regularisation purposes. The High Court had mechanically applied an earlier decision without addressing the distinct disciplinary and adjudicatory history: an enquiry, failed departmental appeal and Industrial Tribunal confirmation of termination. Those distinctions also required correction when specifically raised in review.
Issues
- Whether an earlier decision justified re-engagement and continuity without addressing material differences in the employee’s disciplinary and litigation history.
- Whether refusal to review that application of precedent could stand.
Held
- The respondent had been dismissed following a departmental enquiry, his departmental appeal had failed, and the Industrial Tribunal had confirmed termination. Those facts required individual consideration. (¶¶ 3, 4, 6)
- The earlier decision’s directions arose in a different setting, including re-engagement directed by appellate or revisional authorities. It did not govern this respondent’s case as assumed by the High Court. (¶¶ 7, 9, 10, 11)
- The Division Bench failed to address the material distinctions when affirming the Single Judge and again when rejecting review. It ought to have reviewed and recalled its earlier order on the facts pointed out. (¶¶ 6, 10, 11)
- The Single Judge’s re-engagement and continuity directions and the Division Bench’s appellate and review orders could not be sustained. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13)
Result
Corporation’s appeals allowed to the stated extent without costs; Single Judge’s order and Division Bench’s appellate and review orders set aside.