SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- S.B. Majmudar and U.C. Banerjee, JJ.

C.A. No. 7377 of 1997. D/d. 9.9.1999

UPSRTC through its Managing Director and another - Petitioners

Versus

Jeewan Prasad Misra and another - Respondents

Termination of Service - No notice to workman to show cause against proposed action - Termination not sustainable for non-compliance with natural justice.

[Para 4]

Cases Referred :-

Rolston John v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, AIR 1994 Supreme Court 131 : 1995 Supp (4) SCC 549 : 1999-III-LLJ (Suppl)-86.

ORDER

S.B. Majmudar, J. - The appellant U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and another have brought in challenge the judgment and order dated April 2, 1997 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in a writ petition filed by Respondent 1 workman.

2. A few relevant facts leading to the present proceedings may be noted at the outset.

3. The respondent workman was working as a Welder, Grade I in the service of the appellant Corporation of Kanpur. It is his case that on July 19, 1983 he submitted an application that he should be sanctioned earned leave from July 25, 1983 to August 19, 1983. His prayer was accepted and accordingly, he remained on leave. On July 27, 1993 he was ordered to be transferred from Allen Forest Workshop at Kanpur to Dehradun workship and he was ordered to be relieved. This transfer order was challenged by him before the High Court of Allahabad by filing W.P. No. 10291 of 1983, which was dismissed. Even thereafter without reporting for duty at Dehradun he filed a review petition in the High Court. Earlier dispute which was raised by him before the Labour Court, Kanpur about the post and pay-scale of Mechanic was withdrawn. The appellant Corporation tried to serve Respondent 1 at his last-known address asking him to report at Dehradun but that notice could not be served as he had left that place. The appellant Corporation had to issue notice in Dainik Hindustan (a daily Hindi newspaper) asking Respondent 1 to resume his duties. The said notice is said to have been published in the newspaper on April 19, 1984. After the writ petition was dismissed, Respondent 1 moved an application under Section 6-F of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on January 11, 1985 raising a dispute about the alleged illegal termination of his service with effect from June 11, 1984, which according to the appellant Corporation was passed as despite public notice published in the newspaper, he did not report for duty. The Labour Court after hearing the parties took the view that it cannot be said that the services of Respondent 1 were illegally terminated and hence the reference was rejected on October 29, 1993. Respondent 1 filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the said order in 1994. The High Court after hearing the parties allowed the writ petition on April 2, 1997. The High Court took the view that without issuing a show-cause notice to Respondent 1 his services could not have been terminated. He was, therefore, ordered to be reinstated with back wages from January 1, 1988. It is this order which is brought in challenge in appeal by the appellant Corporation after obtaining special leave.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. In our view, the order terminating the services of Respondent I cannot be sustained for the simple reason that as held by this Court in Rolston John v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, AIR 1994 Supreme Court 131 : 1995 Supp (4) SCC 549 : 1999-III-LLJ (Suppl)-86 at least natural justice required that he should have been served with a notice calling upon him to show cause why action should not be taken against him for not reporting for duty at Dehradun. As that was not done, no fault can be found with the decision of the High Court that the order of termination was bad.

5. However, the High Court directed that Respondent 1 should be reinstated in service with continuity and should be paid back wages from January 1, 1988. According to us, looking to the conduct of Respondent 1 and the way he did not report for duty at Dehradun even though his writ petition in the High Court had failed, he is not entitled to back wages from January 1, 1988. It is pertinent to note that in the industrial dispute raised by him the Labour Court had found that the order of termination was justified because of his conduct and dismissed his petition. It is because of the decision of the High Court dated April 2, 1997 that he was ordered to be reinstated after setting aside the termination order. Therefore, while confirming the order of the High Court ordering reinstatement of Respondent 1 with continuity of service, we deem it fit to direct payment of back wages from April 1, 1997 instead of April 1, 1988. The appeal is allowed to this extent. The appellant Corporation will now pay up the back wages accordingly to Respondent 1 workman within three months from today. In the meantime, Respondent 1 will be permitted to report for duty at the Corporation office at Dehradun to which place he was earlier ordered to be transferred. At the request of learned counsel for Respondent 1, four weeks time is granted to Respondent 1 to join at his place of posting at Dehradun pursuant to the present order. Interim stay granted earlier is vacated. If Respondent 1 does not join at his place of posting within the time granted by us, then he will lose all benefits under this order, his writ petition in the High Court will stand dismissed and the Labour Court's order against him will become operative. No costs.

Appeal partly allowed.