2009 (3) TMI 1070 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court overturns High Court order, demands reasoned judgment in Booking Clerk reinstatement case with 50% backwages.

U.P.S.R.T.C. Versus Jagdish Prasad Gupta

The SC set aside the HC's order dismissing the appellant's writ petition, which challenged a Labour Court decision reinstating a Booking Clerk with 50% ... Involvement of serious acts of misconduct proved against Booking Clerk and removed from service - Challenged the Non-reasoned order of High Court - Respondent filed an application before the Labour Court and admitted that certain entries in register entered by him could not be made - Labour Court directed re-instatement with 50% backwages - writ petition was filed which was dismissed summarily after issuance of notice to the respondent who filed his reply - basic stand of the appellant is that the order is non-reasoned and the High Court had not even considered the various stands highlighted by the appellant. HELD THAT:- It appears that the High Court had initially issued notice and reply was filed by the respondent. After that the High Court has dismissed the writ petition in a summary manner. It cannot be said that the various aspects highlighted by the appellant were without any substance. What would have the effect of it was to be enquired in the writ petition which apparently has not been done. The order reads as follows: ''Impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this Court. Consequently writ petition is dismissed.'' As the quoted portion of the order goes to show that practically no reason was indicated, the dismissal of the writ petition in such summary manner without indicating any reason is clearly indefensible. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an application of its mind, all the more when its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of reasons has rendered the High Court's judgment not sustainable. The attempt to draw an analogy on the power of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the `Constitution') and the practice of rejecting appeals at the SLP stage invariably without assigning reasons with the one to be exercised while dealing with a writ petition has no meaning and is illogical. First of all, the High Court is not the final court in the hierarchy and its orders are amenable to challenge before this Court, unlike the obvious position that there is no scope for any further appeal from the order made declining to grant special leave to appeal. It has been on more than one occasion reiterated that Article 136 of the Constitution does not confer any right of appeal in favour of any party as such and it is not that any and every error is envisaged to be corrected in exercising powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The powers of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution are special and extraordinary and the main object is to ensure that there has been no miscarriage of justice. That cannot be said to be the same with a writ petition. This position is highlighted in Dr. Vishnu Dev Sharma v. State of U.P. and Ors [2008 (1) TMI 979 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. Hence, the impugned order of the High Court is clearly unsustainable and is set aside. The matter is remitted to the High Court to hear the Civil Misc. Writ Petition to be disposed of by a reasoned order. Issues:Challenge to order passed by Single Judge of Allahabad High Court dismissing Writ Petition filed by appellant regarding order passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gorakhpur.Analysis:The appellant, a Booking Clerk, was suspended and later removed from service due to serious acts of misconduct, carelessness, and non-compliance with orders. The Labour Court directed reinstatement with 50% backwages after the respondent admitted to certain charges during examination. The High Court summarily dismissed the writ petition challenging the Labour Court's decision, stating that the order did not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference. However, the Supreme Court found the High Court's dismissal without reasons indefensible, emphasizing the importance of providing reasons in judicial decisions for clarity and transparency.The Supreme Court highlighted the necessity of recording reasons in judicial orders, citing previous cases and emphasizing that reasons are essential for proper application of mind, adherence to principles of natural justice, and judicial review. The Court criticized the High Court's summary disposal, stating that arbitrary decisions without reasons are unacceptable, especially when orders are subject to further challenge. Drawing a distinction between the High Court's powers and the Supreme Court's powers under Article 136 of the Constitution, the Court emphasized that the High Court's orders are open to appeal, necessitating reasoned decisions to facilitate effective judicial review.In light of the above, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and remitted the matter for a reasoned decision, emphasizing that the High Court must provide a detailed rationale for its judgment. The Court concluded by disposing of the appeal accordingly, highlighting the importance of reasoned judgments in maintaining transparency and upholding principles of natural justice.