Supreme Court: Award Valid Even If Passed After Mandate Expiry When Court Extends Time  ||  Jharkhand HC: Regular Bail Plea During Interim Bail is Not Maintainable under Section 483 BNSS  ||  Cal HC: Theft Claims and Public Humiliation Alone Don’t Amount To Abetment of Suicide U/S 306 IPC  ||  Delhi High Court: Elective Surgery Does Not Bar Grant of Interim Bail on Medical Grounds  ||  Delhi HC: Consensual Romance With Minor Nearing 18 May be Considered For Bail in POCSO Case  ||  Delhi HC: Not Named In FIR Doesn’t Matter If Financial Links Show Active Role in NDPS Offence  ||  Chhattisgarh HC: Rape is an Affront to Womanhood and a Brutal Violation of The Right To Life  ||  Supreme Court: Single Insolvency Petition Maintainable Against Linked Corporate Entities  ||  Supreme Court: Disputes are Not Arbitrable When the Arbitration Agreement is Alleged to be Forged  ||  Supreme Court: Temple Trust Does Not Qualify as an ‘Industry’ under the Industrial Disputes Act    

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