Supreme Court of India

S.K. SALDIversusTHE GENERAL MANAGER, U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR.

Citation: 1997 INSC 114
Decided: 6 February 1997
Disposal: Dismissed
Bench: K RAMASWAMYS SAGHIR AHMAD

Holding

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no manifest error of law in the High Court's order and upholding the finality of that order.

Summary

S.K. Saldi, appointed in Meerut Straw Board Mills and later deputed to S.B. Sugar Mills, sought to be repatriated to his parent department when the mill declined to retain him. He filed a civil suit in the Bijnor Civil Court, which ordered his reinstatement and transfer back to the parent department. The mill challenged this order in the Allahabad High Court, which held that reinstatement could not be ordered while an enquiry against Saldi was pending, and the High Court's decision became final as Saldi did not appeal it. Saldi then filed a revision petition, which was dismissed, and subsequently approached the Supreme Court by special leave. The Supreme Court held that Saldi had failed to implead his actual employer, Jaswant Sugar Mills, and that the final order of the High Court did not contain a manifest error of law, thus dismissing the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the Civil Court's order for reinstatement is valid despite a pending enquiry against the appellant.
Whether the failure to implead the actual employer (Jaswant Sugar Mills) renders the suit liable to dismissal.
Whether the High Court's reversal of the Civil Court's order was justified.
Whether the appellant can successfully challenge a final order that was not appealed earlier.

Subjects

service lawdeputationreinstatementrepatriationnon-joinder of necessary partypending enquiryspecial leave petitioncivil suit

Judgment

S.K. SALDI A
>- v.
THE GENERAL MANAGER, U.P. STATE SUGAR
CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR.
·"
FEBRUARY· 6, 1997
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.]
.. Service Law:

Appellant appointed in Straw Board Mills-Transferred on deputation
to Sugar Mills-Reversion sought to parent Depanment--Refusal-Suit filed
c
by appellant-Civil Judge directed reinstatement and thereafter transferred him
to parent DepaTt:ment-Said order challenged by Mill-High Coun held that
.
appellant was not entitled to be reinstated as enquiry was pending against·
him-This order was not challenged by appellant and it became final-There-
.after appellant filed revision which was dismissed by Hii:h Coun-Appeal D
I
prefemd before Supreme Court-Held the appellant had not impleaded his
employer in the suit-He suo motu impleaded the Mill in SLP but sub-
r sequently deleted it-Main order was also allowed to become final-Held in
these circumstances there was no manifest error of law warranting inter-
ference.
E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3170 of
1981.

- )
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.4.80 of the Allahabad High
Court in C.M. Application No. Nil of 1979 in C.R. No. 1136 of 1979.

Pramod Swarup for the Appellant.
F

Pradeep Misra for the Respondents.

-;. The following Order of the Court was delivered :
G
This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Allahabad
High Court, made on April 21, 1980 in Miscellaneous Application in Civil
_,_, Revision No, 1136n9.

The appellant has to get over several insurmountable difficulties in
his way. On his own showing, the appellant claims to have been appointed H
1015
1016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] 1 S.C.R.

A in M/s. Meerut Straw Board Mills, Meerut, which was claimed to be a
.(
subsidiary of J aswant Sugar Mills. It is claimed by the appellant that he
was transferred on deputation to S.B. Sugar Mills; as a consequence, he
was entitled to go back to his parent Department. However, since he was
not relieved, he filed acivil suit, viz., Case No. 26/48, before the Civil Judge,
Bijnor. The Civil Judge, by his order dated March 29, 1979, directed the
B S.B. Sugar Mill, Bijnor to formally reinstate him and thereafter transfer
him to the parent Department. The said order came to be challenged by
the Mill in the revision in the High Court. The High Court held that he '·•
...
was not entitled to be reinstated. Since an enquiry was pending against him,
the Court at the most would have directed to conduct an enquiry followed
by action to be taken according to the result of the enquiry. That order
c was not challenged and it became final. Thereafter, the appellant filed a
revision petition before the High Court which came to be dismissed. Thus,
this appeal by special leave.

Shri Pramod Swarup, learned counsel for the appellant, contenqs
,
D that when the appellant was initially appointed in the Meerut Straw board
and was transferr6d to the. Mill on deputation, he was entitled to be
repatriated when the Mill was not inclined to retain his services and,
..
-
. therefore, the direction issued by the Civil Court is valid in law and the
High Court was not justified in reversing that order. As stated earlier, the
appellant had to cross several insurmountable hurdles, namely, in the suit
E
the appellant had not impleaded his employer M/s. Jaswant Sugar Mills
with whom he claimed to have been appointed. He suo motu impleaded
the sugar Mill in the SLP filed in this Court and subsequently, it was
deleted. Under these circumstances, the sugar Mill against whom the relief
sought for was not a party to the suit. Therefore, the suit was liable to be
F dismissed for non-joinder of necessary and proper party. The second .· -.
difficulty in the way of the appellant was that the main. order was allowed
to become final and he did not challenge the same. Under these cir-
cumstances, the review order could not have more force than the original
order. Therefore, we do not find any manifest error of law warranting
G interference.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances,
without costs. The interim order passed by this Court stands dissolved. r-

T.N.A. Appeal dismissed.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "service law"Sign in to search