College & ANR. Vs. C.Jaishankar & Ors.  INSC 733 (13 April 2009)
JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2609-2610 OF 2009 (Arising out of
SLP(C)9455-9456/2009 CC 4405) The Secretary, Seethalakshmi Aachi Women's ..
Appellant(s) College & Anr.
Versus C Jaishankar
& Ors. .. Respondent(s) ORDER Delay condoned.
Challenge in this
appeal is to the final judgment and order dated 28th August, 2008 passed by the
Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in Writ Appeal (MD) No. 281 of 2008. By
the impugned order, the appellate Bench has reversed the order passed by the
learned Single Judge on 21st June, 2007 in Writ Petition (MD) No. 3744 of 2004
whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent- workman was dismissed and
the order of his removal from the post of Watchman was upheld. The Learned
Judge had come to the conclusion that the respondent- employee had himself
abandoned the work.
Since the issue
involved is short, with the consent of learned counsel for the respondents, who
is on caveat, we proceed to dispose of the matter at this stage itself.
Learned counsel for
the appellants submits that the Appellate Bench has erred in allowing the
appeal without finding any infirmity in the order passed by the Learned Single
Judge. The Division Bench has merely directed that the employee should be
reinstated within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of
the order. It is thus, urged that being a non-speaking order, it deserves to be
set aside. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has supported
the view taken by the appellate Bench.
Having perused the
impugned order, we are of the opinion, that it cannot be sustained. It needs
little emphasis that in an intra-Court appeal, the Division Bench does not
normally differ from the finding of fact arrived at by the Single Judge, unless
cogent reasons exist. In other words, if the Division Bench disagrees with the
views of the Single Judge, it must record its reasons therefor.
In the instant case,
the operative part of the order passed by the Appellate Bench reads as under :
facts and circumstances of the case and upon having gone through the order
passed by the learned Single Judge, we deem it appropriate to set aside the
order passed by the ..3/- C.A.2609-2610/2009...contd..
learned Single Judge
and in our opinion a direction to the respondent to reinstate the appellant
within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order,
will serve the ends of justice."
From the order we are
unable to decipher any ground or reason which weighed with the Division Bench
in reversing the decision of the learned Single Judge. The Single Judge,
recorded a finding that since the respondent had himself stopped attending to
the work, no relief could be granted to him in the writ petition.
It is manifest from
the impugned order, that except for the observation that in the interest of
justice, the order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be reversed,
there is no finding on the question of abandonment of job by the employee.
We are convinced that
such a non-speaking order by an Appellate Bench cannot be upheld.
For the foregoing
reasons, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
appeals are allowed; the impugned orders passed by the Appellate Bench,
including order dated 4th March, 2009 passed in MP(MD) No. 2 of 2008, are set
aside and the matter is remitted back to the ..4/- CA.2609-2610/2009...contd..
Appellate Bench for
fresh consideration of the appeal in accordance with law. It goes without
saying that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
However, there will
be no order as to costs.
[ D.K. JAIN ]
[ R.M. LODHA ]