Supreme Court: Imminent Death Not Required For a Statement to Qualify as Dying Declaration  ||  SC: HC Cannot Grant Pre-Arrest Bail Without Quashing FIR; Accused Must Approach Sessions Court First  ||  SC: Agreed Interest Rate Cannot Be Challenged as Exorbitant; Arbitrator Cannot Override Contract  ||  SC: Agreed Interest Rate Cannot Be Challenged as Exorbitant; Arbitrator Cannot Override Contract  ||  SC: GST Exemption on Residential Lease Applies When Building is Sub-Leased for Hostel/PG Use  ||  Rajasthan High Court: Universities Cannot Retain Students’ Original Documents for Pending Fees  ||  NCLT: Damages from Contractual Disputes Cannot Form Basis for Initiating Insolvency Proceedings  ||  Del HC: Pre-SCN Consultation is Unnecessary in Large-Scale GST Fraud Cases with Complex Transactions  ||  Calcutta HC: Unilaterally Appointed Arbitrator Violates Natural Justice and Sets Aside the Award  ||  Raj HC Upholds Padmesh Mishra’s AAG Appointment, Noting Advocacy Skill isn’t Tied to Experience    

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