1998 INSC 0489
                                                     U.P.S.R.T.C.

                                                           Vs

                                             Pukhraj Singh and Others

                                          Civil Appeal No. 3368 of 1998

                                         (S. P. Bharucha, V. N. Khare JJ)

                                                      17.07.1998

                                                        ORDER

1. Special leave granted.

2. The order under appeal was passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court at Allahabad.
The writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed because the learned Judge was of the view
that it was not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

3. The writ petition was filed to challenge the order of the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court in
an industrial dispute. The question was whether the action of the appellant in terminating the
services of the first respondent was legal and valid. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that
the action of the appellant in terminating the services of the first respondent was "legal and valid
and he is not entitled to any benefit". The Labour Court, however, went on to direct that "on
humanitarian ground, it would be proper to engage him in any other post than driver". The Labour
Court found that the first respondent had no control over the steering and self-confidence was
lacking and that such a driver could not be permitted to play with the lives of the passengers. It
would, however, it directed, be proper to engage the first respondent in the workshop or any other
place.

4. At an earlier stage in the proceedings, we had adjourned the matter to enable counsel for the
appellant to find out whether there was any Class III or Class IV post against which the first
respondent could be accommodated. He informs us today that there is not, the appellant being
overemployed.

5. We have heard learned counsel.

6. Once the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the action of the appellant in terminating the
services of the first respondent was justified, legal and valid and he was not entitled to any benefit,
we are unable to understand wherefrom the Labour Court drew the jurisdiction to require the
appellant to engage the first respondent in a post other than as a driver. It is one thing to hold in a
given case that the punishment imposed by the employer is very harsh and to substitute something
less. It is altogether different, and untenable, to find that the employer has validly and legally
terminated the services of the employee and that the latter is not entitled to any benefit and yet to
require the employer to engage the employee in some other post.

7. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the order of the High Court under appeal and of the Labour
Court is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.