C.S. Joshi Vs. Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 2553 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.15097 of 1996)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 29.3.1996 of the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P.No. 8106 of 1986)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.15097 of 1996)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 29.3.1996 of the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P.No. 8106 of 1986)
Petitioner: C.S. Joshi
Respondent: Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur & Anr.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 2553 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.15097 of 1996)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 29.3.1996 of the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P.No. 8106 of 1986)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.15097 of 1996)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 29.3.1996 of the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P.No. 8106 of 1986)
Judges: K.RAMASWAMY & K.T.THOMAS, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 21, 1997
Appearances:
Mrs. S. Janani, Advocate for the Appellant.
Nikhil Nayyar, Advocate for T.V.S.N. Chari, Advocate for the Respondents.
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR LAW
Disciplinary proceedings
Reinstatement- Back Wages for period in which the appellant was in suspension or dismissal – Held 25% back wages being granted by Judge in his discretion, would meet the ends of justice and no further remittance was called for – Appeal dismissed.
Held:
The learned Judge felt it, in his discretion, to be expedient that 25% of the back-wages would meet the ends of justice. It being a discretionary order, we think that no useful purpose would be served for further remittance. (Para 4)
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, made on March 29, 1996 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.8106/86.
3. The appellant, while working as Lower Division Clerk, is said to have fabricated the record and misappropriated the funds of the respondent Institution. As a result show cause notice was issued and he was removed from service. Subsequently, on a reference under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court had in the award directed reinstatement of the appellant with 50% of the back-wages. Thereon, the respondent filed the writ petition. Similarly, the appellant also filed the writ petition. Both the writ petitions came to have been decided on different dates. The writ petition filed by the respondent-institution had come up in the first instance where the learned single Judge, while maintaining the order of reinstatement, ordered reducing the back-wages to 25%. When the writ petition of the appellant had come up, the learned Judge directed payment of 100% back-wages. The matter was carried in appeal to this Court. This Court set aside both the orders and remitted the matter for reconsideration. After remand, the learned single Judge considered the matter and restored the order passed by him on the writ petition filed by the respondent-Management and dismissed the writ petition of the appellant. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
4. The learned Judge felt it, in his discretion, to be expedient that 25% of the back-wages would meet the ends of justice. It being a discretionary order, we think that no useful purpose would be served for further remittance.
5. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, made on March 29, 1996 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.8106/86.
3. The appellant, while working as Lower Division Clerk, is said to have fabricated the record and misappropriated the funds of the respondent Institution. As a result show cause notice was issued and he was removed from service. Subsequently, on a reference under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court had in the award directed reinstatement of the appellant with 50% of the back-wages. Thereon, the respondent filed the writ petition. Similarly, the appellant also filed the writ petition. Both the writ petitions came to have been decided on different dates. The writ petition filed by the respondent-institution had come up in the first instance where the learned single Judge, while maintaining the order of reinstatement, ordered reducing the back-wages to 25%. When the writ petition of the appellant had come up, the learned Judge directed payment of 100% back-wages. The matter was carried in appeal to this Court. This Court set aside both the orders and remitted the matter for reconsideration. After remand, the learned single Judge considered the matter and restored the order passed by him on the writ petition filed by the respondent-Management and dismissed the writ petition of the appellant. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
4. The learned Judge felt it, in his discretion, to be expedient that 25% of the back-wages would meet the ends of justice. It being a discretionary order, we think that no useful purpose would be served for further remittance.
5. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
