Chief Manager of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs Haneef Khan

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 2025 INSC 250 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2025 (@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS.24258-24259/2019)

CHIEF MANAGER OF RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION APPELLANT(s)

VERSUS HANEEF KHAN RESPONDENT(s)

D.B. CIVIL REVIEW PETITION NO.263/2019

O R D E R

The application for amendment is allowed. Permission is

granted to assail the order dated 11.07.2022 passed in D.B.

Civil Review Petition No.263/2019.

Leave granted.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant-

Corporation and learned counsel for the respondent at length.

3. During the course of submission, while narrating the

facts of the case in detail, learned counsel for the appellant

submitted that initially, the High Court while disposing of the

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.310/2018 connected with D.B.

Special Appeal Writ No.819/2018, the latter filed by the

appellant herein by judgment dated 12.02.2019 had ordered that

only 50% of the back wages (half the back wages) by way of

actual monetary benefit along with continuity of service for

the intervening period from 04.10.2001 to 30.11.2010 with Signature Not Verified interest at 9% per annum may be awarded to the respondent Digitally signed by RADHA SHARMA Date: 2025.02.20 17:28:04 IST Reason: herein, within a time-frame of three months which was also

indicated for compliance. Consequently, the appeal filed by

1 the appellant herein was dismissed by the High court. However,

respondent herein had preferred D.B. Civil Review Petition

No.263/2019 seeking full back wages for the aforesaid period.

By order dated 11.07.2022, the said Review Petition was allowed

and the Division Bench directed that the respondent herein was

entitled to full wages in respect of the intervening period

under the order of termination dated 04.10.2001 i.e. the

intervening period from 04.10.2001 dated 30.11.2010.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the

appellant has a good case on merits and in fact the order

rejecting the permission under Section 33(2)(b) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the Labour Court and

subsequently, the same being sustained by the High Court are

contrary to law. Alternatively, she submitted that in the

event, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter on

merits, at least, the order of the Division Bench dated

12.02.2019 may be given effect to and the order passed in the

Review Petition dated 11.07.2022 may be set aside.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent however contended that

there is no merit in this appeal; that the High Court was

justified in allowing the Review Petition and granting full

back wages and hence, the appeal may be dismissed.

6. We have considered the arguments advanced at the bar in

light of the fact that this appeal has had a checkered history

and we note that on the Labour Court rejecting the permission

sought for by the appellant herein, there was deemed

continuation of employment of the respondent and therefore, the

2 High Court has rightly observed that in the absence of any

other intervening factor, the appellant was entitled to back

wages on the premise that there was continuity in service of

the respondent herein.

7. In our view, the High Court was justified in granting

only 50% of the back wages by its initial order dated

12.02.2019. However, in the Review Petition the said order has

been modified to grant full back wages which we find is not

just and proper having regard to the facts and circumstances of

this case and particularly having regard to the fact that for

nearly ten years the respondent herein, without performing any

of his duties, cannot at the same time seek full back wages.

8. We therefore set aside the order passed in the Review

Petition dated 11.07.2022 and allow the appeal in that regard

and sustain the order passed by the Division Bench dated

12.02.2019 in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.310/2018 connected

with D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.819/2018.

9. Since the respondent has in the interregnum attained the

age of superannuation, the appellant-Corporation shall comply

with the directions of the High Court in D.B. Special Appeal

Writ No.310/2018 dated 12.02.2019 and grant all monetary

benefits that the respondent is entitled to owing to his

superannuation, if any, within a period of one month from

today.

3 These appeals are allowed in part in the aforesaid terms.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

………………………………………………………,J.

( B.V. NAGARATHNA )

…………………………………………………………,J.

( SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA ) NEW DELHI;

FEBRUARY 13, 2025

4 ITEM NO.20 COURT NO.7 SECTION XV

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).24258-24259/2019 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 12-02-2019 in DBSAW No. 310/2018 12-02-2019 C/W DBSAW No. 819/2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur]

CHIEF MANAGER OF RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

HANEEF KHAN Respondent(s)

(IA No. 109306/2022 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION IA No. 109320/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)

Date : 13-02-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ritu Bhardwaj, Adv.

Mr. Anil Kumar Gautam, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. M. M. Kashyap, AOR Mr. M.M.kashyap, Adv.

Ms. Poonam Seth, Adv.

Mr. Ilin Saraswat, Adv.

Ms. Mona, Adv.

Ms. Ilma Saifi, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The application for amendment is allowed.

Leave granted.

These appeals are allowed in part in terms of the

signed non-reportable order which is placed on the file.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed

of.

(RADHA SHARMA) (DIVYA BABBAR) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)

5