1980 (1) TMI 204 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the respondent's dismissal violated principles of natural justice.
2. Whether the respondent had the locus standi to maintain the writ petition.
3. Whether the High Court could direct reinstatement with full back wages.

Summary:

1. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The respondent, employed as a Warehouseman with the Uttar Pradesh State Warehousing Corporation, was dismissed without being given an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses or present his defense. The Supreme Court held that the Corporation, being a statutory body, was required to act in a quasi-judicial manner and observe the principles of natural justice. The Court emphasized that the respondent should have been given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself, which includes cross-examining witnesses and presenting evidence. The dismissal was thus quashed as it violated these principles.

2. Locus Standi to Maintain the Writ Petition:
The appellants contended that the respondent had no statutory status and thus no locus standi to maintain the writ petition, arguing that his remedy lay in filing a suit for damages. However, the Supreme Court, referring to the case of Sukhdev Singh & Ors. v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi & Anr., held that employees of statutory bodies have a statutory status and are entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for breaches of natural justice or statutory regulations. The Court affirmed that the respondent was in public employment and the Corporation was an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.

3. High Court's Direction for Reinstatement with Full Back Wages:
The Supreme Court found merit in the appellants' contention that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by directing reinstatement with full back wages. The Court clarified that while the High Court could quash the dismissal order, it should not have directed reinstatement with full back wages in its supervisory capacity under Article 226. The determination of back wages involves factual considerations, such as whether the employee was gainfully employed elsewhere during the period of dismissal, which are typically addressed by industrial tribunals or labor courts. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the quashing of the dismissal but deleted the direction for payment of full back wages.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed with the modification that the direction for payment of full back wages was deleted. The Corporation was directed to pay the costs of the respondent in the Supreme Court.