SC: Suit Alleging Coercion or Undue Influence Cannot be Rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC  ||  Cal HC: Once ED Attachment is Confirmed, Challenge Becomes Academic; PMLA Remedy Must be Pursued  ||  MP HC: Pen-Drive Evidence Cannot be Introduced At a Late Trial Stage Without Proof or Relevance  ||  Calcutta HC: Employee Can't be Stopped From Joining Rival Post-Resignation; Trade Secrets Protected  ||  Calcutta HC: Banks Must Provide Forensic Audit Report Before Calling an Account Fraudulent  ||  Del HC: Woman Cannot Demand Re-Entry to Abandoned Matrimonial Home if Alternate Accommodation Exists  ||  Calcutta HC: Land Acquisition For Industrial Park is Public Purpose; Leasing to Industry is Valid  ||  Patna HC: PwD Recruitment Must Comply With RPwD Act; Executive Resolutions Cannot Override the Law  ||  Madras HC: Individuals Facing Criminal Trial Must Get Court Permission Even to Renew Passports  ||  Calcutta HC: Demolition Orders Cannot be Challenged under Article 226 if a Statutory Appeal Exists    

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