J&K&L HC: Matrimonial Remedies May Overlap, But Cruelty Claims Cannot be Selectively Invoked  ||  Delhi High Court: Customs Officials Acting Officially Cannot be Cross-Examined as of Right  ||  J&K&L HC: Second Arbitral Reference is Maintainable if Award is Set Aside Without Deciding Merits  ||  J&K&L HC: Gold Voluntarily Given to Customer is 'Entrustment'; Theft Excluded from Insurance Cover  ||  Delhi HC: Working Mothers Cannot be Forced to Bear Full Childcare Burden While Fathers Evade Duty  ||  J&K&L HC: Arbitral Tribunal Not a “Court”; Giving False Evidence Before it Doesn’t Attract S.195 CrPC  ||  Calcutta HC: Award May Be Set Aside if Tribunal Rewrites Contract or Ignores Key Clauses  ||  Delhi HC Suspends Kuldeep Singh Sengar’s Life Term, Holding Section 5(C) of POCSO Not Made Out  ||  Calcutta High Court: Arbitration Clause in an Expired Lease Cannot be Invoked For a Fresh Lease  ||  Delhi High Court: 120-Day Timeline under Section 132B Of Income Tax Act is Not Mandatory    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved