Summary
The Supreme Court set aside re-engagement and continuity directions granted to a contract driver whose dismissal followed an enquiry and unsuccessful departmental and Labour Court challenges. The High Court mechanically relied on an earlier batch ruling involving different enquiry circumstances. Continuity could not be granted while the termination remained in place. The Corporation’s appeal was allowed without costs.
Issues
- Whether the prior batch decision justified re-engagement and continuity despite the respondent’s distinct disciplinary and adjudicatory history.
Held
- The respondent’s dismissal followed a departmental enquiry finding misconduct proved, with departmental challenges and the industrial dispute unsuccessful. The High Court failed to address those individual circumstances. (¶¶ 3, 5, 9)
- The earlier batch decision concerned cases without enquiry or involving natural-justice defects. Mechanical reliance on it did not justify the directions issued here. (¶¶ 5, 6)
- Continuity could remove a service hiatus after termination was set aside; it could not be granted while the termination subsisted. The Court also identified the unwarranted equivalence with employees having unblemished records. (¶¶ 7, 8)
- Both the Single Judge’s and Division Bench’s orders were unsustainable and were set aside. (¶ 10)
Result
Corporation’s appeal allowed without costs; High Court Single Judge and Division Bench orders directing re-engagement and continuity set aside.