REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2708 of 2012
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.21197 of 2010)
Vismay Digambar Thakare ...Appellant
Versus
Ramchandra Samaj Sewa Samiti & Ors. ...Respondents
J U D G M E N T
T.S. THAKUR, J.
1. Leave Granted.
2. This appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 7th
May, 2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay,
Nagpur Bench, whereby M.C.A. (Review) No.1479 of 2009 in
Letters Patent Appeal No.386 of 2008 has been allowed and the
judgment of the School Tribunal to the extent the same awarded
back wages to the appellant has been set aside.
[
3. When the matter came up before us for hearing on 27th
February, 2012, learned counsel for the parties made their
submissions extensively but sought liberty to mention the matter
again if the parties were able to negotiate an amicable settlement
on the question of back wages claimed by the appellant? Only to
recapitulate the line of arguments advanced before us we may
mention that learned counsel for the appellant had placed
reliance upon the decisions of this Court in U.P. State
Brassware Corpn. Ltd. & Anr. v. Uday Narain Pandey
(2006) 1 SCC 479, Reetu Marbles v. Brabhakant Shkla
(2010) 2 SCC 70, and Metropolitan Transport Corporation
v. V. Venkatesan (2009) 9 SCC 601, to contend that back
wages could be awarded to the appellant even in the absence of
a specific assertion by the appellant to the effect that he was not
gainfully employed during the period he remained out of service.
It was argued by learned counsel for the appellant on the
strength of the above decisions that back wages could range
between 25% to 60%.
4. On behalf the respondent-Institution, reliance was placed
upon the decision of this Court Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan
& Anr. v. S.C. Sharma, (2005) 2 SCC 363, in an attempt to
demonstrate that unless there was a specific assertion that the
appellant was not gainfully employed during the period he
remained out of service, no back wages could be awarded in his
favour.
5. It is not necessary for us to pronounce upon the rival
contentions urged by learned counsel for the parties. We say so
because the matter was mentioned before us on 28th February,
2012 by the learned counsel for the parties. It was submitted on
behalf of the respondent-school and the Simiti that they were
willing to pay to the appellant a sum of Rupees one lakh in full
and final settlement of the claim made by him towards back
wages. Mr. Manish Pitale, learned counsel for the appellant
submitted on instructions that the appellant was ready and
willing to accept the said amount in satisfaction of his claim.
6. The parties having agreed to a solution, we see no reason
why the same cannot be made a basis for disposal of this appeal
in modification of the order passed by the High Court.
7. We accordingly, allow this appeal but only in part and to
the extent that the appellant shall be paid by respondents No.1-
Samiti and No.2-Institution jointly and severally a sum of Rupees
one lakh towards back wages in full and final settlement of the
claim of the appellant on that account. The payment shall be
made to the appellant within a period of three months from today
failing which the amount shall start earning interest @ 10% p.a.
from the date of this judgment till actual payment. The parties to
bear their own costs.
.........................................J.
(T.S. THAKUR)
...........................................J.
(GYAN SUDHA MISRA)
New Delhi
March 2, 2012
