http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: S.K. SALDI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE GENERAL  MANAGER, U.P.  STATE SUGAR  CORPORATION LTD.  &

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       06/02/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the order of the  Allahabad  High  Court,  made  on  April  21,  1980  in Miscellaneous Application in Civil Revision No. 1136/79.      The appellant  had to  get over  several insurmountable difficulties in  his way.  On his own showing, the appellant claims to  have been  appointed in  M/s. Meerut  Straw Board Mills, Meerut,  which was  claimed to  be  a  subsidiary  of Jaswant Sugar  Mills. It is claimed by the appellant that he was transferred  on deputation  to S.B.  Sugar Mills;  as  a consequence, he  was entitled  to  go  back  to  his  parent Department. However,  since he  was not relieved, he filed a civil suit  viz, Case  No. 26/48,  before the  Civil  Judge, Bijnor. The  Civil Judge, by his order dated March 29, 1979, directed the  S.B. Sugar  Mill, Bijnor to formally reinstate him and  thereafter transfer  him to  the parent Department. The said  order came  to be  challenged by  the Mill  in the revision in the High Court. The High Court held that the was not entitled  to be reinstated. Since an enquiry was pending against him,  the Court  at the  most would have directed to conduct an  enquiry followed by action to be taken according to the  result of the enquiry. That order was not challenged and it  became final.  Thereafter,  the  appellant  filed  a revision petition  before  the  High  court  which  filed  a revision petition  before the  High Court  which came  to be dismissed. Thus, this appeal by special leave.      Shri Pramod  Swarup, learned counsel for the appellant, contends that  when the appellant was initially appointed in the Meerut  Straw Board  and was  transferred to the Mill on deputation, he  was entitled to be repatriated when the Mill was not  inclined to retain his services and, therefore, the direction issued  by the Civil Court is valid in law and the High Court  was not  justified in  reversing that  order. As stated  earlier,   the  appellant   had  to   cross  several insurmountable hurdles,  namely, in  the suit  the appellant had not impleaded his employer M/s. Jaswant Sugar Mills with whom  he  claimed  to  have  been  appointed.  He  suo  motu impleaded the  sugar Mill in the SLP filed in this Court and subsequently, it was deleted. Under these circumstances, the sugar Mill  against whom  the relief  sought for  was not  a

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

party to  the suit.  Therefore, the  suit was  liable to  be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary and proper party. The second difficulty  in the  way of the appellant was that the main order  was allowed  to become  final  and  he  did  not challenge the  same. Under  these circumstances,  the review order could  not have  more force  than the  original order. Therefore,  we  do  not  find  any  manifest  error  of  law warranting interference.      The  appeal   is  accordingly  dismissed,  but  in  the circumstances, without  costs. The  interim order  passed by this Court stands dissolved.