25 August 2004
Supreme Court
Download

RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TPT.CORPN. Vs TILLA RAM

Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT,D.M. DHARMADHIKARI
Case number: C.A. No.-004032-004032 / 2001
Diary number: 2798 / 2000
Advocates: SUSHIL KUMAR JAIN Vs


1

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  4032 of 2001

PETITIONER: Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Anr.      

RESPONDENT: Tilla Ram                                                                

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/08/2004

BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT & D.M. DHARMADHIKARI

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

ARIJIT PASAYAT,J.

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred  to as ’Corporation’) calls in question legality of the judgment  rendered by learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court dismissing  the second appeal filed by the Corporation.   

Background facts necessary for disposal of the appeal in a  nutshell are as follows:

The respondent (hereinafter referred to as the ’employee’) filed  a civil suit in the Court of the learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior  Division and Judicial Magistrate III, Jaipur City, Jaipur.  Suit was  for declaration that the order of termination dated 18.3.1986 passed by  the Corporation is illegal.  According to him he was appointed as a  Conductor on permanent basis and on erroneous impression that he was  carrying passengers without tickets, his services were terminated. He  was not departmentally proceeded against and no inquiry was conducted,  and, therefore, the order of termination was illegal and arbitrary.  It  was further pleaded that the principle of "last come first go" was not  followed in his case.  The Corporation took the stand that the employee  was appointed on daily wage basis.  He was not appointed on permanent  basis.  There was no necessity for departmental proceedings or enquiry  since he was engaged on a daily wage basis, and the engagement was  discontinued. In any event there was no stigma attached.  The Trial  Court after consideration of the materials brought on record came to  hold that the employee was appointed on daily wage basis.  There was no  question of departmental inquiry in case of daily wager.  The employee  had not produced any appointment order to substantiate his plea that he  was engaged on permanent basis.  There was no inquiry held and,  therefore, the question whether the inquiry was proper or not did not  arise for consideration.  The Trial Court did not think it necessary to  decide the question of jurisdiction to entertain the suit.  The suit  was dismissed.  The employee preferred an appeal before the First  Additional District Judge No.V, Jaipur City who by the judgment dated  23.3.1999 reversed the conclusions of the Trial Court and held that the  order of termination was illegal and violative of principles of natural  justice  and employee was entitled to be in the service of the  Corporation and he was entitled to the monetary and financial  consequential benefits.

The Corporation preferred an appeal before the Rajasthan High  Court and the learned Single Judge as noted above dismissed the second  appeal.

2

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

In support of the appeal Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, learned counsel  submitted that the approach of the High Court is clearly erroneous.  It  recorded findings which are contrary to the materials on record.  The  High Court proceeded on the basis as if the Trial Court held that the  inquiry against the plaintiff was not in accordance with the principles  of natural justice and that the procedure of holding enquiry was  grossly violative. The High Court and the Appellate Court had held that  the inquiry was not in accordance with the principles of natural  justice.  After referring to the conclusions of the First Appellate  Court, the High Court felt that decision given on merits is based on  facts.

None appeared on behalf of respondents in spite of service of  notice.

We find that while the Trial Court had analysed the factual  position in law in great detail and had arrived at the right  conclusions, the First Appellate Court did not consider the matter in  the proper perspective.  Some of its conclusions are clearly untenable.   For example on the basic question as to the validity of the action  taken by the Corporation, the First Appellate Court observed as  follows:

"10. The contention of the learned advocate for  respondent is that the plaintiff was a daily wage  worker and was on a temporary post and that there is  no need for holding the departmental enquiry before  terminating him.  That in support of the contention  the learned advocate has produced the following  illustrations before me :-

1.      1991 S.C.C. 591 State of Uttar Pradesh  versus Kaushal Kishore Shukla.

2.      A.I.R. 1994 Supreme Court 2411 State  of  Uttar Pradesh versus Prem Lata.

3.      1996 (5) S.C.C. 889 K.V. Krishnamani  versus Lalit Kala Academy.

4.      1996 (1) S.C.C. 560 Satya Narayan versus  High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.

5.      R.L.R. 1990 (2) page 268 Shakti Kant  Pathak versus Paschmi Dugadh Utpadak  Sahkari Sangh Ltd.

6.      1994 (2) W.L.C. (Raj.) 25 Kanwar Singh  versus Union of India."

It is to be noted that before the First Appellate Court the  Corporation was the respondent.  After referring to some judgments  referred to by the Corporation, it inappropriately came to the  conclusions that the judgment and decree was liable to be appealed and  the appeal of the plaintiff was liable to be accepted on the basis of  the above mentioned illustrations (reference was made to the judgments  noted above).

Unfortunately, it has not been indicated as to how decisions  relied upon by the Corporation supported the case of the plaintiff- employee.  What was the ratio in those cases and how they were  applicable and helpful to the employee’s case has also not been  indicated.  Such unreasoned and palpably wrong conclusions cannot be

3

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

supported in law.  Unfortunately, the High Court did not consider these  aspects.  It confused between the  conclusions of the Trial Court and  the First Appellate Court.  Conclusions of the First Appellate Court  were treated to be that of the Trial Court.  This was certainly a very  highly improver way of dealing with the matter.  

In view of the above, we remit the matter to the High Court to  decide the appeal in accordance with law after giving due opportunities  to the parties.                    

Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms with no order as to  costs.