advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Wednesday, August 21, 2013

Service matter = Reinstatement with compensation but not with back wages = After considering the evidence adduced before the Tribunal, it had come to the conclusion that the termination of the respondent was not legal and therefore, by an award dated 30th June, 2001, the order terminating service of the respondent dated 28th February, 1998, had been quashed and it was directed that the respondent should be reinstated in service as a driver with continuity of service and with arrears of salary for the period during which the respondent-workman was not permitted to perform his duties.= However, we feel that the respondent should not have been awarded full back wages. 10. Instead of awarding back wages, in view of the facts of the case, it would be just and proper to award, in all a sum of Rs.5 lacs by way of compensation to the respondent-workman. It had been submitted that the appellant-Corporation had already paid more than Rs.3,60,000/- to the respondent-workman and if it is so, the amount so paid shall be adjusted while paying the compensation of Rs.5 lacs. Thus, we direct that by way of compensation, in all Rs.5 lacs should be given to the respondent-workman in lieu of back wages. The said amount shall be paid to the workman within four weeks from today. 11. If the respondent-workman has not been reinstated till today, the appellant-Corporation shall reinstate him within four weeks from today. 12. In the above circumstances, the impugned judgment delivered by the High Court is modified to the above extent. The appeal is allowed to the extent stated hereinabove. No order as to costs.

published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40667
                                             NON-REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                       CIVIL APPEAL NO.  6968  OF 2013
                 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 22730 of 2013)






U.P. State Road Transport Corporation        .....Appellant



                                Versus

C.P. Goswami                                         …..Respondent






                               J U D G M E N T


1 ANIL R. DAVE, J.




1.    Leave granted.


2.    Being aggrieved by the judgment delivered in  Writ-C  No.375  of  2003
dated 7th November, 2012, by the High  Court  of  Judicature  at  Allahabad,
this appeal has been filed by the  employer  -  U.P.  State  Road  Transport
Corporation.


3.    By virtue of the impugned judgment, the High Court has  confirmed  the
award dated 30th June, 2001, published on 3rd September, 2001, made  by  the
Industrial Tribunal (III), U.P. at Kanpur.


4.    The facts giving rise to the present litigation, in  a  nutshell,  are
as under :


      The respondent-workman was working  as  a  driver  of  the  appellant-
Corporation.  On  17th  January,  1996,  the  respondent  had  abused  staff
members of the  Corporation  and  created  hindrance  in  the  work  of  the
Corporation.  It was also alleged that the respondent  was  under  influence
of  liquor  at  the  time  when  he  had  misbehaved.   In  the  aforestated
circumstances, the respondent was placed under suspension and after  holding
a departmental enquiry, by an order dated 28th February, 1998,  his  service
had been terminated.  Being aggrieved by the order terminating his  service,
he had raised a dispute before the Industrial Tribunal and the Tribunal  had
looked into the entire case under its Adjudication Case No.73 of 1999.


5.    After considering the evidence adduced before  the  Tribunal,  it  had
come to the conclusion that the termination of the respondent was not  legal
and therefore, by an award dated 30th  June,  2001,  the  order  terminating
service of the respondent dated 28th February, 1998, had  been  quashed  and
it was directed that the respondent should be reinstated  in  service  as  a
driver with continuity of service and with arrears of salary for the  period
during which  the  respondent-workman  was  not  permitted  to  perform  his
duties.


6.    The aforestated award was challenged before  the  High  Court  by  the
appellant-Corporation by filing  Writ-C  No.375  of  2003.   The  said  writ
petition has been dismissed by the impugned  judgment  dated  7th  November,
2012, and the said judgment has been challenged in the present appeal.


7.    The  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  appellant-Corporation  had
mainly submitted that on account of misconduct  of  the  respondent-workman,
his service had been terminated and therefore,  the  order  terminating  his
service ought not to have been interfered with  by  the  Tribunal   and  the
workman ought not to have been reinstated in the service  with  back  wages.
He had submitted that  looking  to  the  evidence  adduced  with  regard  to
misconduct of the respondent-workman, the Tribunal should not  have  quashed
and set aside the order terminating service of the  respondent-workman.   He
had further submitted that the respondent should not have been awarded  back
wages especially when  he  had  not  worked  for  the  said  period  on  the
principle of ‘No work, No pay’.


8.    On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-workman  had
supported the judgment of the High Court affirming the award.


9.    Upon hearing the learned counsel and  looking  at  the  facts  of  the
case, we are of the view that  the  finding  of  facts  arrived  at  by  the
Tribunal should not be interfered with, especially when the High  Court  has
confirmed the same.  
However, we feel that the respondent  should  not  have
been awarded full back wages.


10.   Instead of awarding back wages, in view of the facts of the  case,  it
would be just and proper to award, in all a sum  of  Rs.5  lacs  by  way  of
compensation to the respondent-workman.  It  had  been  submitted  that  the
appellant-Corporation had already  paid  more  than  Rs.3,60,000/-   to  the
respondent-workman and if it is so, the amount so  paid  shall  be  adjusted
while paying the compensation of Rs.5 lacs.  Thus, we direct that by way  of
compensation, in all Rs.5 lacs should be given to the respondent-workman  in
lieu of back wages.  The said amount shall be paid  to  the  workman  within
four weeks from today.


11.   If the respondent-workman has not  been  reinstated  till  today,  the
appellant-Corporation shall reinstate him within four weeks from today.


12.   In the above circumstances, the impugned  judgment  delivered  by  the
High Court is modified to the above extent.  The appeal is  allowed  to  the
extent stated hereinabove.   No order as to costs.




                                    ………………................................J.



                                                              (ANIL R. DAVE)




                                       ….…….................................
                                                                ..........J.

                                                               (DIPAK MISRA)

New Delhi
August 21 , 2013


-----------------------
5





No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.