EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF U.P. STATE WAREHOUSINGCORPORATION, vs CHANDRA KIRAN TYAGI

The Supreme Court held that the dismissal of the respondent, a warehouseman, was invalid as it violated Regulation 16(3) of the Agricultural Produce (Development and Warehousing) Corporation Act, 1956, which mandates a fair procedure including the opportunity for the employee to present their case. The Court clarified that while reinstatement is not typically granted for personal service contracts, exceptions exist for breaches of mandatory statutory obligations. The dismissal was deemed contrary to the established regulations, leading to the conclusion that the respondent was entitled to a declaration of reinstatement.