Ibrahim Shahabuddin Shaikh Vs. Sangli District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No.758 of 1988
Petitioner: Ibrahim Shahabuddin Shaikh
Respondent: Sangli District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No.758 of 1988
Judges: V. RAMASWAMI & MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 30, 1990
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR LAW
Wages
Backwages – Reinstatement – Denial of backwages – Backwages from the date of dismissal to the date of second employment allowed.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. On having attained reinstatement under the judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay, under appeal, the appellantemployee was aggrieved against the denial of backwages.
2. The bare facts are that the appellant was a clerk with the respondent-bank. He was accused of having committed misconduct under four heads. He was removed from service. He raised an industrial dispute. The Labour Court cleared him of two charges. Before the Appellate Industrial Court, he was successful in having the order of dismissal converted into an order of retrenchment. He filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court. The High Court cleared him of another charge and the remaining charge was dealt with as follows :-
“As regards the second charge viz. of making a voucher of Rs.10/- each for rickshaw charges when the employee had gone on bicycle on two occasions,, even assuming that the charge is proved as held by the Labour Court, we fail to see how this charge can merit dismissal of the employee. The industrial court in so many words has come to the conclusion that the dismissal was a disproportionate punishment for the said charges. We are therefore unable to support the order passed by the industrial court denying the employee reinstatement and instead treating his removal from service as retrenchment.”
Having recorded that finding, the appellant was ordered to be reinstated in service but without backwages. Now he is here by special leave insisting grant thereof.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is apparent from the order of the High Court as also of the two Tribunals on the industrial side that the question of measure of backwages was never gone into. The only material which causes some reflection thereon is available in the special leave petition. The undisputed position is that the appellant was dismissed from service on 27.11.1976 but was successful in obtaining another job on 13.6.1978. According to the appellant’s own calculation he was deprived of a sum of Rs. 18, 300/- due to unemployment which he would have earned had he remained on job. Another figure of Rs.90,504/- has also been claimed on account of the difference between the two wages for the future period. We are told that the appellant on reinstatement has remained with the employer only for two weeks or so and has resigned and as on today he is not in the service of the respondent. Since we do not have the advantage of the views of the High Court and the Industrial Tribunals on this aspect, we are of the opinion that the appellant at least was entitled in the facts and circumstances to backwages from the date of his dismissal to the date of his second employment under another employer. The figure of Rs.18,300/- claimed by the appellant, we feel, is legitimately due to him. In the absence of complete details regarding the difference between the two salaries, we are not inclined to grant any relief to the appellant, and also do not feel the necessity of remitting the case back to the Labour Court for consideration on this aspect. Accordingly, we partially allow this appeal and grant backwages to the appellant to the tune of Rs.18,300/-. The sum be paid to the appellant within two months from now, failing which interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum shall be chargeable from the date of this order till actual payment.
1. On having attained reinstatement under the judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay, under appeal, the appellantemployee was aggrieved against the denial of backwages.
2. The bare facts are that the appellant was a clerk with the respondent-bank. He was accused of having committed misconduct under four heads. He was removed from service. He raised an industrial dispute. The Labour Court cleared him of two charges. Before the Appellate Industrial Court, he was successful in having the order of dismissal converted into an order of retrenchment. He filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court. The High Court cleared him of another charge and the remaining charge was dealt with as follows :-
“As regards the second charge viz. of making a voucher of Rs.10/- each for rickshaw charges when the employee had gone on bicycle on two occasions,, even assuming that the charge is proved as held by the Labour Court, we fail to see how this charge can merit dismissal of the employee. The industrial court in so many words has come to the conclusion that the dismissal was a disproportionate punishment for the said charges. We are therefore unable to support the order passed by the industrial court denying the employee reinstatement and instead treating his removal from service as retrenchment.”
Having recorded that finding, the appellant was ordered to be reinstated in service but without backwages. Now he is here by special leave insisting grant thereof.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is apparent from the order of the High Court as also of the two Tribunals on the industrial side that the question of measure of backwages was never gone into. The only material which causes some reflection thereon is available in the special leave petition. The undisputed position is that the appellant was dismissed from service on 27.11.1976 but was successful in obtaining another job on 13.6.1978. According to the appellant’s own calculation he was deprived of a sum of Rs. 18, 300/- due to unemployment which he would have earned had he remained on job. Another figure of Rs.90,504/- has also been claimed on account of the difference between the two wages for the future period. We are told that the appellant on reinstatement has remained with the employer only for two weeks or so and has resigned and as on today he is not in the service of the respondent. Since we do not have the advantage of the views of the High Court and the Industrial Tribunals on this aspect, we are of the opinion that the appellant at least was entitled in the facts and circumstances to backwages from the date of his dismissal to the date of his second employment under another employer. The figure of Rs.18,300/- claimed by the appellant, we feel, is legitimately due to him. In the absence of complete details regarding the difference between the two salaries, we are not inclined to grant any relief to the appellant, and also do not feel the necessity of remitting the case back to the Labour Court for consideration on this aspect. Accordingly, we partially allow this appeal and grant backwages to the appellant to the tune of Rs.18,300/-. The sum be paid to the appellant within two months from now, failing which interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum shall be chargeable from the date of this order till actual payment.
