ANAND BIHARI Vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION JAIPUR
LAWS(SC)-1990-12-57
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: RAJASTHAN)
Decided on December 20,1990

ANAND BIHARI Appellant
VERSUS
RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,JAIPUR THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

HOSHIAR SINGH VS. MANAGEMENT OF DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION [LAWS(DLH)-1994-3-47] [REFERRED]
KULDEEP SINGH VS. DELHI TRASPORT CORPORATION [LAWS(DLH)-2002-8-124] [REFERRED TO]
DHARAMBIR VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION [LAWS(DLH)-2002-8-113] [REFERRED TO]
DTC VS. MURTI DEVI [LAWS(DLH)-2007-10-226] [REFERRED TO]
RAJODEVI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2003-8-8] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY KUMAR SHEVDY VS. CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER RAILWAY PROTECTION FACE CENTRAL RAILWAY AND [LAWS(ALL)-2003-10-11] [REFERRED TO]
CHAKLESH SARSWAT VS. GENERAL MANAGER U P STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION [LAWS(ALL)-2003-12-2] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. MOHD MOBIN KHAN [LAWS(ALL)-2006-1-238] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. MOHD MOBIN KHAN [LAWS(ALL)-2006-1-238] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD YASIN ANSARI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2006-2-70] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD YASIN ANSARI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2006-2-70] [REFERRED TO]
GOVT OF A P VS. D GOPAIAH [LAWS(APH)-2001-10-153] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD SUKUR MIYA VS. SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED MANDAMARRI AREA ADILABAD DISTRICT [LAWS(APH)-2003-1-66] [REFERRED TO]
ANISUR RAHMAN KHAN VS. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY [LAWS(CAL)-1991-12-10] [REFERRED TO]
NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA VS. K R HEMAVATHY [LAWS(KAR)-2000-7-73] [REFERRED TO]
NURUL ISLAM VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2000-5-18] [REFERRED TO]
FALCON TYRES LIMITED MYSORE VS. FALCON TYRES EMPLOYEES UNION MYSORE [LAWS(KAR)-2005-4-33] [REFERRED TO]
J BENJAMIN VS. MANAGEMENT OF BHARAT EARTH MOVERS LIMITED KOLAR GOLD FIELD [LAWS(KAR)-2005-8-39] [REFERRED TO]
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. AHMED [LAWS(KAR)-2006-4-15] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF BHARAT EARTH MOVERS LIMITED REP VS. J BENJAMIN S/O J JAYANATHAN [LAWS(KAR)-2006-6-93] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF D A T C LIMITED VS. PRESIDING OFFICER I ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT [LAWS(MAD)-2002-3-30] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY VS. JANARDHAN D MISHRA [LAWS(BOM)-1996-10-119] [REFERRED TO]
JASWANT SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(SC)-1996-9-162] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGING DIRECTOR U R S R T C VS. RN TANDON [LAWS(SC)-1997-9-135] [DISTINGUISHED]
LAL CHAND VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(SC)-1999-8-174] [REFERRED TO]
J K SATIJA VS. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION [LAWS(DLH)-2010-5-19] [REFERRED TO]
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. OM PARKASH [LAWS(DLH)-2010-3-94] [REFERRED TO]
D T C VS. SURAJ BHAN [LAWS(DLH)-2010-2-145] [REFERRED TO]
PRAVINISINH KHENGARBHAI ROHIT VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1997-12-28] [REFERRED TO]
MGMT OF D A T C LTD VS. P O I ADDL LAB COURT [LAWS(MAD)-2002-3-64] [REFERRED TO]
MX OF BOMBAY VS. ZY [LAWS(BOM)-1997-4-26] [REFERRED TO]
MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. DAMODHAR SAKHARAM BHOYAR [LAWS(BOM)-2004-12-7] [REFERRED TO]
G MUTHU VS. TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION MADURAI LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2006-8-229] [REFERRED TO]
MATHU G VS. MANAGMENT OF TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPN MADURAI LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2006-8-295] [REFERRED TO]
C DAMODARASAMY VS. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2007-1-449] [REFERRED TO]
GENERAL MANAGER TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION KUMBAKONAM DIVISION - II LTD VS. UDAYASURIYAN [LAWS(MAD)-2008-3-202] [REFERRED TO]
JOHN PETER A VS. TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION [LAWS(MAD)-2008-3-229] [REFERRED TO]
RANJIT KUMAR RAJAK VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2009-5-10] [REFERRED TO]
R MANI VS. LABOUR COURT [LAWS(MAD)-2008-11-190] [REFERRED TO]
G MUNUSWAMY VS. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2009-4-8] [REFERRED TO]
E MURUGAN VS. GENERAL MANAGER OPERATION METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION CHENNAI LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2011-4-592] [REFERRED TO]
RANJIT SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-1994-2-25] [REFERRED TO]
GHASI KHAN VS. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND [LAWS(RAJ)-1995-4-22] [REFERRED TO]
RAMA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2005-5-59] [REFERRED TO]
PARAM PAL SINGH THROUGH FATHER VS. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO [LAWS(SC)-2012-12-65] [REFERRED TO]
SOHAN LAL VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(SC)-2013-5-5] [REFERRED TO]
R.MANIMARAN VS. MANAGING DIRECTOR METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2013-8-25] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD VS. B.GNANASEKARAN [LAWS(MAD)-2007-7-435] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KISHORE BURAGOHAIN VS. AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2014-1-2] [REFERRED TO]
Rameshwar Dass VS. State of Haryana [LAWS(MPH)-1995-2-76] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. SUBHASH P. DUNAGU [LAWS(BOM)-2001-7-155] [REFERRED TO]
SARDAR SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2009-7-163] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. GURBACHAN SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2010-5-276] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA PRASAD VS. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, AGRA AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-1999-11-173] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGING DIRECTOR, TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD. VS. E. HUMAYUN SHERIFF [LAWS(MAD)-2012-12-338] [REFERRED TO]
LAKHMI CHAND VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. [LAWS(P&H)-1995-9-130] [REFERRED TO]
NARAIN LAL VS. JUDGE, LABOUR COURT, BHILWARA & ANR. [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-4-39] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD HARUN S/O JUMMA KURESHI VS. MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION [LAWS(BOM)-2008-2-328] [REFERRED]
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS VS. BALWANT SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2007-1-156] [REFERRED]
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. RAM KANWAR & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2010-4-384] [REFERRED]
RAJ STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORP AND ANR VS. SABNAM RAISINGHANI AND ORS [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-8-339] [REFERRED]
SUGAN KANWAR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS [LAWS(RAJ)-2008-2-186] [REFERRED]
AMARJIT SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2003-1-345] [REFERRED]
S BALDEV SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-1995-3-200] [REFERRED]
GIAN CHAND VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2005-12-102] [REFERRED]
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, KHARAGPUR VS. SANJEEB KUMAR SINGH & ORS [LAWS(CAL)-2017-4-108] [REFERRED TO]
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. MADAN LAL & ANR. [LAWS(DLH)-2018-12-1] [REFERRED TO]
SHAFIUDDIN VS. MASHUR ALAM [LAWS(ALL)-2019-1-31] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT VS. PRESIDING OFFICER [LAWS(MAD)-2020-2-143] [REFERRED TO]
A.S.MOHAN VS. MANAGEMENT OF T T K LIG LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2019-8-585] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Sawant, J. - (1.)Civil Appeals Nos. 185961 of 1990 are preferred by the workmen,Of the Rajasthan State Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Corporation,,) against the decision dated March 8, 1989 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan and Civil Appeal No. 1862 of 1990 is preferred by another workman against the decision dated March 15, 1989 of the same Division Bench whereas Civil Appeal No. 1863 of 1990 is preferred by the Corporation against the decision dated March 15, 1989 of another Division Bench of the High Court. Since the issues involved in all these appeals are common, we are deciding them all together.
(2.)The facts of Civil Appeals Nos. 1859-62 are same. The workers in question were appointed as drivers to drive the roadways buses of the Corporation in the region of Ajmer, Jaipur and Bharatpur. They had put in a long service discharging their duties to the satisfaction of the Corporation. Sometime in 1987, their routine medical examination showed that they had developed defective eyesight and did not have the required vision for driving heavy motor vehicles like buses for which they were engaged by the Corporation, The Corporation, therefore, constituted a medical Board and directed the workers to appear before it for testing their eye-sight. The Board found them -totally unfit for driving heavy motor vehicles. The Corporation issued notices to the workmen to show cause as to why their services should not be terminated since they were. found unfit for driving its buses. The workmen submitted their explanations in which they asked for conducting a second test of their eye-sight and also prayed that in case they were found unfit for driving the buses, they should be given some other job in the Corporation. The Corporation after considering the explanation of the workmen came to the decision that since the workmen's eye-sight was not of the standard required to drive the buses they could not be retained in service, and tercminated their services. The orders of termination of services were challenged by the workmen before the High Court by filing individual writ petitions, on two grounds, viz., that 'the termination amounted to retrenchment within the meaning of S. 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act) and since the retrenchment was effected without following the mandatory provisions of S. 25F of the Act, it was illegal. Secondly, it was urged that there was an agreement between the drivers' Union (AITUC) and the Corporation on February 21, 1979 whereunder it was provided that if a driver was found unfit for driving the bus, he should be posted as a helper. In pursuance of the said agreement, the Corporation had also issued a circular on March 10, 1980 providing for giving the job of a helper to an unfit driver. Hence, it was urged that the termination of the services was illegal on that ground as well. The workmen on these grounds not only prayed for the quashing of the orders terminating their services but in the alternative also prayed for direction to the Corporation to offer them the alternative job of a helper. The Corporation, on the other hand, contended that the termination of the workmen's services did not amount to retrenchment within the meaning of S. 2(oo) of the Act and hence there was no illegality from which the termination orders suffered. The Corporation also stated that there was no agreement between it and the drivers'Union as alleged, and that the circular dated March 10, 1980 was later on withdrawn. Hence, the workmen could not claim any right under the circular. The High Court upheld both the contentions of the Corporation and dismissed the workmen's writ petitions. However, while dismissing the petitions, the High Court also added that in case the workmen approached the Corporation for absorbing them as helpers, their cases for such absorption be considered sympathetically if they were otherwise found fit and eligible. It is this order which the workmen have challenged before us in these appeals.
(3.)The facts in Civil Appeal No. 1863 of 1990 filed by the Corporation are that the services of theworkman similarly working as a driver were terminated on the ground that he had lost vision of his right eye. He had approached the High Court with the same grievances as the workmen in the other writ petitions. The workman in this case had further pointed out that in fact since he had lost the sight of one eye on March 11, 1986, he was not working as a driver but was working in the maintenance section of the vehicles. For that work, he was not found unfit and yet his services were terminated by the impugned order of February 27, 1988 on the ground of his said incapacity to work as a driver. The High Court by its impugned decision held that although the workman had lost the vision of one eye, he was fit to discharge the duties of any technician or helper or any other employee of that cadre. This was also the report of the Medical Officer and hence the Corporation should have absorbed the workman in any other job according to his capacity instead of terminating his services. The High Court, therefore, quashed the order terminating his services and directed the Corporation to absorb him in the post of a helper or any other equivalent post for which he might be found fit. The Court further directed that the workman should be treated as being in continued service, and the period between the date of the termination of his services and his reinstatement should be treated as leave without pay which may be to his credit or which he may earn in future. It is this order which is challenged by the Corporation in this appeal.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.