Lucas India Service Ltd. Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madras & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. of 1996.
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 14384 of 1995)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 14384 of 1995)
Petitioner: Lucas India Service Ltd.
Respondent: The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madras & Anr.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. of 1996.
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 14384 of 1995)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 14384 of 1995)
Judges: A.M. AHMADI,CJI. & SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J.
Date of Judgment: Jan 08, 1996
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR LAW
Dismissal
Dismissal from service on account of misconduct for not joining service on transfer – Award of back wages – Held reasons given for awarding back wages thoroughly unsustainable – Not entitled to any back wages – Amounts paid to be refunded.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Special leave granted.
2. Heard counsel on both sides. We find it difficult to appreci-ate how the Tribunal could have directed the Management to pay back wages from 28.2.86 to 19.5.92 even after upholding the order of dismissal from service. The respondent-employee did not join service at Bangalore pursuant to the order of transfer. Indis-putably, the post was a transferable one. He was, therefore, subjected to a domestic inquiry and after the finding s were returned he was visited with the penalty of dismissal from service. The employer showed indulgence by giving him an oppor-tunity to join even after the findings were returned but the employee was adamant and did not join and brought upon himself the order of dismissal. The High Court in paragraph 12 of the order states that the order directing payment of back wages is incongruous and inconsistent but refused to interfere with the award. We find that the reasons given for granting back wages for a period of over six years are thoroughly unsustainable. In the result, we allow the order to stand. We therefore, set aside the order of the Tribunal directing the Management to grant back wages for the period 28.2.86 to 19.5.92 and the subsequent orders affirming the same by the High Court and hold that in the facts and circumstances of the case the employee is not entitled to any amount by way of back wages. We, therefore, set aside that portion of the order of the Tribunal as affirmed by the High Court. The amount deposited by the appellant pursuant to our order shall be returned to the appellant. The appeal will stand disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
1. Special leave granted.
2. Heard counsel on both sides. We find it difficult to appreci-ate how the Tribunal could have directed the Management to pay back wages from 28.2.86 to 19.5.92 even after upholding the order of dismissal from service. The respondent-employee did not join service at Bangalore pursuant to the order of transfer. Indis-putably, the post was a transferable one. He was, therefore, subjected to a domestic inquiry and after the finding s were returned he was visited with the penalty of dismissal from service. The employer showed indulgence by giving him an oppor-tunity to join even after the findings were returned but the employee was adamant and did not join and brought upon himself the order of dismissal. The High Court in paragraph 12 of the order states that the order directing payment of back wages is incongruous and inconsistent but refused to interfere with the award. We find that the reasons given for granting back wages for a period of over six years are thoroughly unsustainable. In the result, we allow the order to stand. We therefore, set aside the order of the Tribunal directing the Management to grant back wages for the period 28.2.86 to 19.5.92 and the subsequent orders affirming the same by the High Court and hold that in the facts and circumstances of the case the employee is not entitled to any amount by way of back wages. We, therefore, set aside that portion of the order of the Tribunal as affirmed by the High Court. The amount deposited by the appellant pursuant to our order shall be returned to the appellant. The appeal will stand disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
