THE DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC versus M. MARUTHI

THE DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC versus M. MARUTHI

The Division Bench and Single Judge erred in failing to consider distinguishing facts between the present case and Writ Petition No.2786 of 2012; reliance on the earlier precedent was not justified as the present case involved a departmental enquiry and confirmation by the Industrial Tribunal.

Parties
Appellant: The Depot Manager, APSRTC; Respondent: M. Maruthi
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
07 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal Decision
Outcome
Appeals allowed; orders of Single Judge and Division Bench quashed
Legal Topics
Termination, Industrial Dispute, Departmental Enquiry, Writ Petition, Review Petition, Practice and Procedure
Labour Law Termination Industrial Dispute Departmental Enquiry Writ Petition Review Petition Practice and Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Depot Manager, APSRTC

Appellant

M. Maruthi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Division Bench and Single Judge erred in relying on an earlier decision not applicable to present facts
  2. 2 Whether the order dismissing the respondent after holding a departmental enquiry was valid

Ratio Decidendi

The Division Bench and Single Judge erred in failing to consider distinguishing facts between the present case and Writ Petition No.2786 of 2012; reliance on the earlier precedent was not justified as the present case involved a departmental enquiry and confirmation by the Industrial Tribunal.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; orders of Single Judge and Division Bench quashed

Orders

  • Order dated 31.07.2013 passed in W.A.M.P. No.1858 of 2013 in Writ Appeal No.144 of 2013 set aside
  • Order passed by Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.144 of 2013 set aside