Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
R.S.R.T.C. & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
LADULAL MALI
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/02/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:
JT 1996 (2) 580 1996 SCALE (2)404
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. This
appeal by special leave arises from the order dated March
18, 1994 made by the learned single Judge in Revision
Petition No.604 of 1993. The appellants had terminated the
service of the respondent on December 7, 1983. On appeal, it
was confirmed. When a suit was filed, the District Munsif by
decree dated November 12, 1990, declared that the order of
termination as well as the order of the appellate authority
were illegal, void and against the principle of natural
Justice. The respondent had filed Execution Petition No.2/91
for reinstatement. The executing Court dismissed the
Execution Application on December 4, 1992 holding that suit
of the plaintiff against the respondent is for declaration.
Therefore, he is not entitled to the back-wages. On a
revision filed, the High Court relying upon the decision of
the High Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corpn. &
Ors. vs. Sohan Lal [S.B.C.R. No.623/93] decided on 26th
October, 1993 set aside the order of the executive Court and
directed payment of the back-wages. Thus this appeal by
special leave.
It is not in dispute that the decree does not contain
payment of back-wages. Only declaratory relief has been
granted. Shri Gaur, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent contended that when the batch was disposed of by
this Court on December 16, 1994, this Court had directed
payment of 40% of the back-wages. The respondent is
accordingly entitled to the same relief. We find from the
order of this Court that there as no such indication. It
would appear that in some cases, there was a declaration to
grant consequential monetary reliefs. In the batch when this
Court had disposed of the matters obviously the relief of
back-wages related to those cases. Consequently, this Court
limited payment of back-wages to the extent of 40%. It is
settled law that executing Court cannot go behind the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
decree. In view of the fact that the decree contained only a
declaratory relief without any consequential payment of
monetary benefits, the executing Court was right in refusing
to grant the relief. The High Court was, therefore, clearly
in error in directing payment of back-wages.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.