(Aniruddha Bose and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ.)
Civil Appeal No(s)./2022 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 29875/2019], decided on August 16, 2022
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Another ___ Appellant(s);
v.
Surendra Pal Singh (Dead) Through Lrs. ____________ Respondent(s).
With
SLP (C) No. 27743/2019
Civil Appeal No(s)./2022 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 29875/2019) and SLP (C) No. 27743/2019
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Leave is granted in petition for special leave to appeal registered as SLP (C) No. 29875/2019.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The dispute in these two matters primarily relates to an award directing payment of back wages to the original respondent (‘the employee’) made by the Labour Court on 20th July 1998. The employee is now being represented by his legal representatives. The original respondent was working as a conductor with the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (‘the Corporation’). He was removed from service on 29th March 1990 on allegations of certain irregularities in issuing tickets to some passengers. His removal order was made in pursuance of a disciplinary proceeding initiated against him. In an industrial dispute raised on this issue, the Labour Court found such termination to be unsustainable in law and directed reinstatement of the employee in service from the date of his termination along with 50% backwages. Backwages was directed to be paid as per the award with respect to his suspension period. He was held to be entitled to receive full payment from the date of the award.
4. This award was unsuccessfully challenged by the Corporation before the High Court. The Corporation’s writ petition (Writ Petition No. 40451 of 1999) against the award was dismissed by the High Court on 12th March 2019. The Court found no illegality or infirmity in the award. The Corporation has questioned legality of the said judgment of the High Court dismissing the Corporation’s writ petition in the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 27743 of 2019. The employee also challenged a part of the award before the High Court being dissatisfied with the relief granted. In his writ petition registered as WRIT-A No. 48844 of 2016, the employee had asked for a direction to pay all the dues with 18% interest with increment and other emoluments as is payable for an incumbent in the post of Junior Booking Clerk. The High Court allowed the employee’s writ petition and directed, inter-alia:—
“….. the respondents to pay the salary and other emoluments as would be available to the petitioner from time to time on the respective post which he would have held and in case he is entitled for the salary from 23.07.2007 the same shall be paid by the Corporation to the petitioner workman within three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
It is also informed that the petitioner-workman has since retired from service on 31.8.2018. Needless to say that he would also be entitled to pension and other dues accordingly.”
5. The employee passed away on 9th October 2018 during pendency of the two writ petitions. Both the writ petitions were disposed of on the same day, i.e., 12th March 2019 by the High Court. We are apprised by the learned counsel for the Corporation that both the writ petitions were heard simultaneously. In the writ petition filed by the Corporation, however, no substitution was made to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased employee. In the writ petition filed by the employee, learned counsel appearing for his legal representatives submits that they (i.e., the legal representatives) were brought on record during pendency of the writ petition. A question arises, under these circumstances, as to whether the SLP (C) No. 27743 of 2019 is maintainable against the legal representatives of the deceased employee, who had passed away during pendency of the Corporation’s writ petition. The writ petition ought to have had stood abated in such circumstances as against the respondent employee. Our notice has not been brought to any order or proceeding brought for curing such defect in the High Court. But we also find that in the employee’s writ petition, there was substitution. In the petition for special leave to appeal the Corporation has taken a point that the dismissal order of the High Court so far as the Corporation’s writ petition is concerned, is bad in law on the ground that when the order was passed, the legal representatives of the deceased employee were not brought on record. If we address this point in isolation, then the writ petition ought to have stood abated as against the employee. The present petition arraigning his legal representatives as respondents would also not be maintainable as against them.
6. It has, however, also been brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the Corporation that in the writ petition before the High Court brought by the employee, there was substitution of the latter’s legal representatives and both the writ petitions were heard together. We have indicated this earlier in this judgment. Thus, the legal representatives of the employee appear to have had the opportunity to defend the writ petition brought by the Corporation. Since the legal representatives of the employee were represented before the High Court and both the writ petitions were heard together, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, we direct the defect in substitution of the legal representatives of the deceased respondent in the Corporation’s writ petition to be treated as cured and the legal representatives of the deceased shall be deemed to have had been substituted in the writ petition instituted against the award filed by the employer/Corporation. But addressing the SLP (C) No. 27743 of 2019 on merit, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal and this petition is dismissed.
7. Now we shall address the points raised in SLP (C) No. 29875/2019. We have reproduced above the operative portion of the judgment in WRIT-A No. 48844 of 2016, against which the Corporation has come up in appeal. We have considered the factual position as also the legal points and find that the primary ground for granting reliefs in the judgment under appeal is dismissal of the Corporation’s writ petition (Writ Petition No. 40451 of 1999). In that writ petition, in substance, the award was sustained.
8. We are of the opinion that a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs over and above that has been granted to the employee/original respondent in terms of the award would be sufficient relief for his illegal termination. Accordingly, we direct the Corporation/employer to pay to the legal representatives of the deceased employee/respondent, who are respondents before this Court the said sum of Rs. 15 lakhs within a period of eight weeks. The order of the High Court impugned in the Civil Appeal arising out of WRIT-A No. 48844 of 2016 shall stand modified to the above extent. The award of the Labour Court, otherwise, is held to be legal and valid.
9. We are passing this order as we find that in fixing compensation adequate discussion was not there as to whether the deceased employee/respondent was gainfully engaged in the interregnum period. We have also taken into consideration that the employee/respondent concerned is no more and is now being represented by his legal heirs and we are inclined to set the matter at rest.
10. This appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
12. There shall be no order as to costs.
———
