U.P STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION &AN Vs ZAHID HUSSAIN
Bench: T.S. THAKUR,C NAGAPPAN
Case number: C.A. No.-005846-005846 / 2014
Diary number: 85 / 2013
Advocates: PRADEEP MISRA Vs
SHWETA GARG
Page 1
1
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5846 OF 2014 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.8394 of 2013]
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. .. Appellant(s)
-vs-
Zahid Hussain .. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T C. NAGAPPAN, J.
1 Leave granted.
2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order
dated 12.9.2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad in Writ-C no.45914 of 2012.
3. The respondent herein was employed as driver in the
appellants-Corporation since 1980 and disciplinary
proceedings were initiated against him on the charges that
Page 2
2
he absented from duty from 1.7.1993 to 22.8.1993; after
joining duty, while he was hauling a stranded vehicle
through his break down truck on 13.9.1993, he carried
passengers on the said truck and under intoxication he
refused to attend another stranded vehicle of the
Corporation and demanded money from that driver. The
Enquiry Officer, in his report, found the first two charges
proved and the third charge partly proved and consequently,
the services of the respondent was terminated w.e.f.
31.3.1999. The appeal preferred by him came to be
dismissed on 10.2.2000. At the instance of the respondent
herein, a Reference was made to the Labour Court, Rampur
with regard to the legality of the termination and the Labour
Court held that the charges were not proved and the
termination was illegal and consequently, directed
reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages.
The Corporation challenged the award by filing the Writ
Petition and the High Court after hearing both sides, upheld
the award and dismissed the Writ Petition. The Corporation
challenged the said order by filing the Special Leave Petition
Page 3
3
and this Court by order dated 11.2.2013 issued notice
limited to the award of back wages.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that
the respondent herein is not entitled for full back wages
since he has not worked during the relevant period. Per
contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted
that the discretion exercised by the courts below to grant full
back wages cannot be faulted with. The respondent herein
is a driver by profession and he has put in long service in the
appellants-Corporation. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, grant of 25% of back wages, in
our view, would meet the ends of justice and it is decided
accordingly.
5. In the result, the respondent herein shall be entitled to
25% of back wages alone and the award is modified
accordingly. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
...…………………………….J. (T.S. Thakur)
...……….……………………J. (C. Nagappan)
Page 4
4
New Delhi; June 30, 2014.