Summary
The Supreme Court set aside High Court directions to re-engage a contract conductor and grant service continuity for regularisation. He had been dismissed after departmental enquiry and unsuccessful departmental challenges, and approached the High Court without pursuing industrial-dispute remedies. The earlier batch ruling relied on did not address his individual circumstances, and continuity could not be granted without setting aside termination.
Issues
- Whether the earlier batch ruling justified re-engagement and continuity despite the subsisting disciplinary termination.
Held
- The respondent’s dismissal followed enquiry and rejected departmental appeal and review. He went directly to the High Court without recourse to the Industrial Disputes Act remedies noted in the judgment. (¶ 3)
- The High Court mechanically applied the earlier ruling without examining this record. That earlier batch involved no enquiry or natural-justice defects and did not justify the same directions here. (¶¶ 5, 6, 9)
- Continuity was unsustainable without setting aside termination, since it serves to remove the service hiatus upon such relief. The Court also rejected placing a workman with a subsisting misconduct finding on the same footing as employees having unblemished service. (¶¶ 7, 8)
- The Single Judge and Division Bench orders 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.