Facts:

The respondent was appointed as a driver on a contract basis and faced a disciplinary inquiry.

Following the inquiry, his service was terminated, but he was later re-engaged on a contract basis.

The respondent approached the High Court seeking continuity of service from the date of termination until re-engagement.

The High Court granted his petition based on a previous judgment dealing with similar cases.

Issues:

Whether continuity of service could be granted to the respondent without challenging the termination or re-engagement orders.

Whether the principles of natural justice were followed in the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent.

Held and Decision:

The Court observed that continuity of service could only be granted when an order of termination is set aside. Since neither termination nor re-engagement was challenged, the grant of continuity of service was unwarranted.( Paragraph 7)

Granting continuity of service to an employee found guilty of misconduct would be unfair and place him on the same footing as other employees with a clean record.( Paragraph 10)

The Court criticized the High Court for issuing a blanket direction without considering the specific facts of each case and emphasized the need for individual assessment.( Paragraph 12)

Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of both the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court. The respondent's seniority was to be counted from the date of his fresh appointment.( Paragraph 13)

The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of in the above terms. No costs. .( Paragraph 14)

Facts:

The respondent was employed as a contract driver by the appellant corporation.

Following a departmental inquiry, the respondent's services were terminated due to misconduct.

The termination was upheld through departmental appeal and subsequent legal proceedings.

The respondent approached the High Court seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The High Court, relying on a previous judgment, directed the corporation to reengage the respondent and grant him continuity of service from the date of termination.

Issues:

Whether the High Court's decision to grant continuity of service to the respondent was valid.

Whether the previous judgment cited by the High Court was applicable to the present case.

Whether the individual facts of the case were adequately considered by the High Court.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the grant of continuity of service to the respondent was erroneous for several reasons. Firstly, continuity cannot be granted unless the termination order is set aside. Secondly, granting continuity to someone found guilty of misconduct would unjustly place them on par with other contractual employees with a clean record.

Additionally, the High Court failed to properly consider the individual facts of the case and instead issued a blanket order based on a previous judgment that was inapplicable.

Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the judgments of both the Division Bench and the Single Judge were set aside.

Facts:

The respondent, A.U.M. Rao, was employed as a driver on contract by APSRTC in February 2007.

Following a disciplinary inquiry, his services were terminated, but he was later re-engaged on contract after a departmental review.

A.U.M. Rao approached the High Court seeking continuity of service and consequential benefits under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Issues:

Whether continuity of service could be granted to the respondent without challenging the termination or fresh appointment?

Whether the judgment of the High Court was erroneous in granting continuity of service based on an earlier judgment?

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the grant of continuity of service without challenging the termination or fresh appointment was incorrect. The Court emphasized that continuity of service could only be granted if the termination order was set aside. The judgment of the High Court was found to be erroneous as individual case facts were overlooked while deciding the batch of cases together.

The Court allowed the appeal and directed that the respondent's seniority should be counted from the date of his fresh appointment. The appeals were disposed of without costs.

Facts:

The respondent was appointed as a contract conductor by the appellant corporation.

Following a departmental inquiry, the respondent's services were terminated due to misconduct.

The respondent approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Single Judge of the High Court directed the corporation to reengage the respondent in service and grant continuity of service.

The Division Bench affirmed the Single Judge's order.

Issues:

Whether the High Court's decision to grant continuity of service to the respondent was justified.

Whether the High Court properly considered the individual facts of the case.

Held:

The Court ruled that continuity of service cannot be granted unless the termination order is set aside. It emphasized the importance of ensuring there is no gap in service.

Granting continuity of service to an employee found guilty of misconduct would place them on the same footing as other contractual employees with a clean record.

The Court found that the High Court failed to properly consider the individual facts of the case and erred in issuing a common order for all cases.

As a result, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of both the Division Bench and the Single Judge.

Facts:

The respondent was appointed as a contract conductor with the appellant corporation (APSRTC).

A departmental inquiry was initiated against the respondent, leading to his termination.

The respondent appealed against the termination and was later granted a fresh appointment.

The respondent approached the High Court seeking continuity of service.

Issues:

Whether the grant of continuity of service to an employee found guilty of misconduct is valid.

Whether the High Court's decision to grant continuity of service was justified.

Held:

Continuity of service cannot be granted to an employee found guilty of misconduct unless the termination order is set aside.

Granting continuity to such an employee would be unjust, as it would place them on the same footing as other contractual employees with a clean record.

The High Court's decision to grant continuity of service was manifestly misconceived.

The seniority of the respondent should be counted from the date of his fresh appointment.

The appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the respondent's seniority was to be counted from the date of his fresh appointment. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of in the above terms.

Facts:

The respondent, M. Maruthi, was terminated from his employment as a contract conductor at the Cantonment Depot, Hyderabad, following a departmental inquiry that found him guilty of misconduct.

Despite dismissal being upheld in subsequent appeals and industrial disputes, Maruthi filed a writ petition before a Single Judge of the High Court. The Single Judge relied on a previous judgment from 2012, directing the appellant, Depot Manager of APSRTC, to reengage Maruthi with continuity of service solely for the purpose of future regularization, without monetary benefits. The Division Bench affirmed this decision in a writ appeal.

Issues:

Whether the Division Bench erred in confirming the Single Judge's order without considering the distinguishing facts of the present case.

Held:

The Division Bench failed to adequately consider the specific facts of the present case in comparison to the previous judgment upon which the decision was based. The circumstances of the earlier case were different from the current situation.

Therefore, the Division Bench erred in confirming the Single Judge's order without proper review. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, setting aside the orders of both the Single Judge and the Division Bench, thereby upholding the appellant's termination of Maruthi's employment.

Facts:

The respondent, a contract driver employed by the appellant corporation, faced a departmental inquiry for unauthorized absence, leading to his termination.

Upon a departmental review, the respondent was re-engaged on contract.

Subsequently, the respondent approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking continuity of service and consequential benefits.

Issues:

Whether continuity of service can be granted without challenging the termination or fresh appointment.

Whether granting continuity to an employee found guilty of misconduct would be appropriate.

Held:

Continuity of service couldn't be granted without challenging the termination or fresh appointment. Granting continuity to an employee found guilty of misconduct would place him on par with other contract employees without blemish records (para. 9-10).

The judgments failed to consider the individual facts of each case and wrongly applied a common order to the entire batch of cases (para. 12).

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the judgments of the Single Judge and the Division Bench. The seniority of the respondent workman should be counted from the date of his fresh appointment in the corporation's service. No costs were awarded in the matter (para. 13-16).

Facts:

Capt. Paul Nadar Bennet Singh applied for the position of Pilot Officer at Tuticorin Port Trust and was appointed on a regular basis subject to conditions.

His appointment was terminated by the appellants citing regulations related to temporary service.

Capt. Singh challenged the termination, leading to the High Court's decision in his favor.

The appellants contended that Capt. Singh's certificate of competency as Master, issued by the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore, was not recognized by the Government of India.

Issues:

Whether Capt. Singh's termination was valid due to the alleged invalidity of his certificate of competency.

Whether the High Court's decision to reinstate Capt. Singh with back wages was justified.

Held:

The Court found no substance in the appellants' contention regarding the invalidity of Capt. Singh's appointment based on his certificate of competency.

The Court noted that the advertisement for the Pilot Officer position did not specify recognition by the Government of India, and the appointment letter did not raise any objections to Capt. Singh's certificate.

The Deputy Nautical Advisor clarified that while the certificate issued by Singapore was not recognized under Indian law, the port trust could be guided by its own regulations.

Capt. Singh had passed the examination for the pilot license, and his appointment was on a regular basis, which further supported the validity of his appointment.

Therefore, the Court upheld the High Court's decision to reinstate Capt. Singh with back wages, modifying the back wages to 40% from 2012 until the date of joining.

This judgment was passed based on the specific facts of the case and was not intended as a precedent for future cases.

Facts:

Dispute arose between STC and GSHL regarding non-payment of outstanding dues under a tripartite agreement.

Parties decided to settle disputes through conciliation proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Two settlement agreements were entered into between the parties, but GSHL failed to fully comply with them.

STC filed an Execution Petition in the Delhi High Court seeking to execute the settlement agreements, which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

STC appealed against the Delhi High Court's decision to the Supreme Court.

Payments were made by the respondents during the pendency of the appeal, eventually discharging the entire liability till 10.11.2012.

The only remaining issue was the interest payable from 10.11.2012 onwards.

Issues:

Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to decide the interest payable and its rate.

Determination of the amount payable towards interest and the period within which it should be paid.

Held:

The Court held that it has jurisdiction to decide the interest payable and its rate, and decided to settle the matter by determining the interest payable and its rate.

The respondents are liable to pay interest on the principal sum of Rs. 1610 crores at a rate of 8% per annum from 10.11.2012.

The respondents were directed to pay a lump-sum amount of Rs. 600 crores towards interest within 12 weeks from the date of the order.

Upon payment of the specified amount, all claims arising from the settlement agreements would be finally settled, and all pending proceedings between the parties would be closed.

Failure to pay the specified amount by the deadline would amount to contempt of court, and STC would have the right to take appropriate legal action.