Supreme Court: Borrowers Retain Redemption Rights if Balance is Paid After Auction Deadline  ||  Supreme Court: Non-Confirmation of Seizure under Section 37A Impacts Adjudication Proceedings  ||  SC: Blacklisting After Contract Termination is Not Automatic and Needs Independent Review  ||  Grand Venice Fraud Case: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Satinder Singh Bhasin  ||  SC: Senior Employee Cannot Claim Same Lesser Penalty As Subordinate; Bank Manager's Dismissal Upheld  ||  Madras HC: Governor Must Follow Cabinet's Advice on Remission Decisions, Regardless of Personal View  ||  Kerala High Court: Entrepreneurs Must Be Protected From Baseless Protests to Boost Industrial Growth  ||  J&K&L High Court: Second FIR Valid if it Reveals a Broader Conspiracy; 'Test of Sameness' is Key  ||  Supreme Court: Expecting a Minor to Respond to a Public Court Notice is ‘Perverse’  ||  SC: Order 23 Rule 1 CPC Applies to S. 11 Arbitration Act, Barring Fresh Arbiration After Abandonment    

U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Pradeep Kumar - (Supreme Court) (23 Jun 2016)

SC reverses labour court’s reinstatement of defrauding bus conductor

Labour and Industrial

The labour court may interfere with punishment award only when such punishment is not other justified, the Supreme Court held.

In the instant case, the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation discovered Respondent-employee, a bus conductor, to be collecting money from passengers but not issuing tickets to them. An inquiry, termed “fair and proper” by the Respondent, was conducted and he was subsequently terminated from service. The matter too was dismissed by the Labour Court, however, the forum opined termination to be too harsh a punishment, instead recommending reinstatement without back wages.

Justices Goel and Khanwilkar accepted the UPSRTC’s contention that collecting money from passengers but not issuing tickets and defrauding the corporation amounted to criminal breaches of trust. Reiterating earlier deliberations by the court, they set aside reinstatement of the Appellant, who had in any case not entered appearance in court.

Relevant : U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Dehradun v. Suresh Pal MANU/SC/8517/2006

Tags : BUS CONDUCTOR   CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST   LABOUR  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved