Supreme Court overturns High Court order on contract employee reinstatement: APSRTC vs. M. Maruthi (2018)

Date of the Judgment: 07 December 2018

Citation: (2018) INSC 1066

Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J., M.R. Shah, J.

Can a High Court order the reinstatement of a contract employee with continuity of service when the employee was dismissed after a full departmental inquiry, merely because a previous case with different facts resulted in a similar order? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the case of The Depot Manager, APSRTC vs. M. Maruthi. The core issue revolved around whether the High Court was correct in relying on a previous judgment that did not involve a full departmental inquiry, to order the reinstatement of a dismissed employee. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah, overturned the High Court’s decision, emphasizing the importance of considering the specific facts of each case.

Case Background

The respondent, M. Maruthi, was employed as a contract conductor at the Cantonment Depot, Hyderabad, under the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC). A departmental inquiry was initiated against him, and he was found guilty, leading to his dismissal. His appeal to the First Appellate Authority was rejected, and the Industrial Tribunal also upheld his termination. Subsequently, the respondent filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Judicature at Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, which was allowed by the Single Judge, relying on an earlier judgment. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal and review petition filed by APSRTC. The APSRTC then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent, relying on a previous judgment in Writ Petition No. 2786 of 2012. The Single Judge directed the APSRTC to re-engage the respondent with continuity of service, excluding the period of absence, but without monetary benefits, counting it only for regularization. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal filed by APSRTC, without considering the distinguishing facts. The Division Bench also dismissed the review petition, stating that similar appeals had been dismissed. The APSRTC then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation and application of principles of service law and the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is no specific statute or section of a statute that is discussed in the judgment.

Arguments

Appellant (APSRTC) Arguments:

• The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Gourab Banerji, argued that both the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court erred in relying on the earlier decision in Writ Petition No. 2786 of 2012.
• It was submitted that in the present case, a full departmental enquiry was conducted, and the employee was dismissed based on the Enquiry Officer’s report. The departmental appeal and the industrial dispute raised by the employee were also dismissed.
• The appellant contended that the Single Judge allowed the writ petition without considering the legality and validity of the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal’s award.
• It was argued that the Division Bench mechanically confirmed the Single Judge’s order without considering the distinguishing facts.
• The appellant submitted that the review application should have been allowed because the facts of the present case were different from those in Writ Petition No. 2786 of 2012, where the employee was terminated without an enquiry.

Respondent (M. Maruthi) Arguments:

• The respondent’s arguments are not explicitly detailed in the judgment. However, it can be inferred that the respondent relied on the judgment in Writ Petition No. 2786 of 2012, which was the basis for the High Court’s decision.
• The respondent’s position was that the principle of continuity of service should apply to them, as it was directed in the earlier case.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant’s argument was innovative in highlighting the factual differences between the present case and the case relied upon by the High Court. This distinction was crucial in demonstrating that the principle of continuity of service should not be applied uniformly without considering the specific circumstances of each case.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues. However, the core issue before the court was:

✓ Whether the High Court was correct in relying on the earlier judgment in Writ Petition No. 2786 of 2012 to order reinstatement with continuity of service, despite the fact that the present case involved a full departmental enquiry and dismissal, while the earlier case did not.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 29.02.2012 in Writ Petition No. 2786 of 2012 of the High Court of Judicature at Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad: This case was the basis for the High Court’s decision. The Single Judge in that case had directed the re-engagement of contract employees with continuity of service. The Supreme Court distinguished this case, noting that it involved terminations without an enquiry, unlike the present case.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 29.02.2012 in Writ Petition No. 2786 of 2012* was distinguished by the Supreme Court. The Court held that the facts of the present case were different from the facts of the case in Writ Petition No. 2786 of 2012. In the present case, the employee was dismissed after a full departmental enquiry, whereas, in the earlier case, the employees were terminated without an enquiry. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in relying on the said judgment.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the factual distinctions between the case at hand and the earlier case relied upon by the High Court. The Court emphasized that the respondent was dismissed after a full departmental enquiry and the dismissal was upheld by the Industrial Tribunal. The Court noted that the High Court failed to consider these crucial differences and mechanically applied the earlier judgment. The Supreme Court also highlighted that the Division Bench of the High Court did not consider the distinguishing facts and dismissed the review application on the ground that similar appeals were dismissed. The Court also observed that the High Court should have considered the facts of the individual case and not rely on the earlier judgment.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court considered the alternative interpretation that the principle of continuity of service should be applied uniformly to all contract employees who are re-engaged. However, the Court rejected this interpretation, holding that the facts of each case must be considered individually, particularly when a full departmental enquiry has been conducted. The Court emphasized that the High Court should not have mechanically applied the earlier judgment without considering the distinguishing facts. The final decision was reached by emphasizing the importance of considering the specific facts of each case and not applying a general rule without considering the factual differences.

The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The High Court erred in relying on the earlier decision in Writ Petition No. 2786 of 2012, as the facts were different.
• The respondent was dismissed after a full departmental enquiry, unlike the employees in the earlier case.
• The High Court failed to consider the distinguishing facts and mechanically applied the earlier judgment.
• The Division Bench of the High Court also failed to consider the distinguishing facts and dismissed the review application on the ground that similar appeals were dismissed.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“However, the Division Bench has not at all considered the distinguishing facts in Writ Petition No.2786 of 2012 and the facts of the case on hand. As such the Division Bench ought to have considered the facts of individual case.”

“The earlier order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 29.02.2012 in Writ Petition No.2786 of 2012 upon which the reliance was placed by learned Single Judge while allowing the petition, in the present case shall not be applicable at all.”

“Therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench cannot be sustained and the same deserve to be quashed.”

There was no minority opinion in this case. Both judges concurred on the decision.

The Supreme Court’s analysis focused on the legal interpretation of the High Court’s decision and its application to the facts. The Court highlighted that the High Court had erred in applying a general principle of continuity of service without considering the specific facts of the case. The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that each case must be decided on its own facts and circumstances, and a judgment in one case cannot be applied mechanically to another case with different facts.

The potential implications for future cases are that the High Courts should not rely on earlier judgments without considering the specific facts of the case. The High Court needs to consider the distinguishing facts of the case and not apply a general rule without considering the factual differences. The judgment also emphasizes that the High Courts should not mechanically apply earlier judgments without considering the factual differences. This may lead to a more thorough analysis of the facts in similar cases in the future.

Key Takeaways

• High Courts should not apply previous judgments mechanically without considering the specific facts of each case.
• A full departmental enquiry and subsequent dismissal of an employee should be given due consideration.
• The principle of continuity of service cannot be applied uniformly without considering the factual differences.
• Review petitions should be considered on their merits, especially when there are distinguishing facts.

The judgment emphasizes the need for a case-by-case analysis in service matters, particularly when dealing with disciplinary actions. This decision may lead to a more cautious approach by the High Courts in applying precedents and may encourage a more thorough examination of factual distinctions in similar cases.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the order dated 31.07.2013 passed in W.A.M.P. No.1858 of 2013 in Writ Appeal No. 144 of 2013, the order passed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 144 of 2013, and the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4317 of 2012.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that High Courts should not apply previous judgments mechanically without considering the specific facts of each case. The judgment clarifies that the principle of continuity of service cannot be applied uniformly without considering the factual differences. The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision, thereby reinforcing the principle that each case must be decided on its own facts and circumstances, and a judgment in one case cannot be applied mechanically to another case with different facts.

Conclusion

In The Depot Manager, APSRTC vs. M. Maruthi, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision to reinstate a dismissed contract employee with continuity of service. The Court emphasized that the High Court had erred in relying on a previous judgment without considering the distinguishing facts of the case. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that each case must be decided on its own facts and circumstances, and a judgment in one case cannot be applied mechanically to another case with different facts. This ruling highlights the importance of a thorough case-by-case analysis in service matters, particularly when dealing with disciplinary actions.