Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
PETITIONER:
CENTRAL COOPERATIVE CONSUMERS, STORE
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
LABOUR COURT, H.P. AND ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT30/04/1993
BENCH:
SAHAI, R.M. (J)
BENCH:
SAHAI, R.M. (J)
VENKATACHALA N. (J)
CITATION:
1994 AIR 23 1993 SCR (3) 477
1993 SCC (3) 214 JT 1993 (3) 532
1993 SCALE (2)842
ACT:
%
Illegal termination of service-Fruitless litigation-
Satisfaction of misplaced ego-Responsibility.
Recovery of backwages-Financial viability of the employer-
Justification for exercising favourable discretion by court.
Whether reinstatement of the employee would come within bona
fide conduct for modification of the order of back wages.
HEADNOTE:
The private respondent was appointed as sales girl with the
petitioner. The new manager not only insulted, humiliated
and he her, he also terminated her services.
On ber plea, the Assistant Registrar who decided the case
after seven years, held the Impugned order as Illegal,
arbitrary and passed without obtaining the requisite
approval. He ordered reinstatement of the private
respondent but did am grant back wages.
The petitioner Informed the private respondent that her
joining report could not be entertained. The letter was
forced to approach the appellate and revising authorities
the labour court and finally the High Court for back wages
and other benefits.
The petitioner approached this court to assail well reasoned
finding recorded by the High Court, without the least regard
of the financial implications. Meanwhile as the petitioner
was unable to persuade this courtes of the case, the
petitioner made attempt to highlight the financial
difficulties in payment of back wages.
Surendra Kumar Varma and others v. Central Government
Industrial Tribunal- Cum-Labour Court, New Delhi & Anr.
[1980] 4 SCC 443, referred to.
The petitioner urged that the private respondent had been
pursuing the
478 ‘
remedy for 16 years. And the profit margin of the
petitioner being very low and the overhead expenses high.
The State and the Centre who granted financial assistance
for rehabilitation subject to the condition that the amount
be not paid towards past debts, would be rendered in serious
predicament.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4
On facts this court found that it was the petitioner who was
not complying with the orders passed by the authorities from
time to time, so there was no justification for exercising
discretion in favour of the petitioner.
Dismissing the SLP and upholding the order of the High
Court, this Court,
HELD: Public money has been wasted due to adamant
behaviour not only of the Officer who terminated the
services of the private respondent but also due to
cantankerous attitude adopted by those who were responsible
for pursuing the litigation, and literally persecuted her.
Working life of the private respondent has been lost for
more than twenty years. While considering the agony and
suffering, the amount of back wages exceeding three lakhs
could not be a proper recompense. And the reinstatement of
the private respondent could not be considered as bonafide
conduct for modification of the order of back wages. (480-D)
Leaving it open to the petitioner to replenish itself and
recover the amount of back wages from personal salary of its
officers who were responsible for the endless litigation and
for terminating the services of the private respondents this
Court clarified that this permission shall have nothing to
do with the direction and the step for recovery be taken
only after payment of back wages to the private respondent.
(480-G)
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No. 4460 of 1993.
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.1.1993 of the Himachal
Pradesh High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 566 of 1990.
Arun Jaitley and Maninder Singh for the Petitioner.
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
How statutory bodies waste public money in fruitless
litigation to satisfy
479
misplaced ego is demonstrated by this petition.
The opposite party was appointed as Sales Girl by the
petitioner, a cooperative society registered under
Cooperative Societies Act, running a Super Bazar in Shimla.
When one of the managers came there on transfer, her trouble
started. Apart from insult, humiliaton and harassment
thrust on her, that manager terminated her services
illegally without being authorised to do so and without
obtaining permission of the Administrator and without giving
any notice or hearing her. The opposite party who had been
apprising her superiors of that manager’s misbehaviour and
of her apprehensions that he was out to get rid of her
although was assured not only of his good behaviour and
security of her services, immediately took recourse to legal
action. To her misfortune the Assistant Registrar decided
her case after seven years. It was held by him that the
order of termination was illegal, arbitrary and was passed
without obtaining approval of the Administrator. He
directed the petitioner to reinstate her but did not grant
any back wages. Even with this order which was prejudicial
to her the opposite party was satisfied but the ego of
petitioner was hurt. For eight months the order was not
implemented by the petitioner as it was contemplating to
file the appeal. And when the petitioner succeeded in
obtaining the order it informed the opposite party that her
Joining Report could not be entertained. Since then the
opposite party has been knocking at the door of the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4
petitioner but she was made to approach the appellate
authority, the revising authority, the High Court, the
Labour Court and finally the High Court again as the
petitioner did not succeed anywhere but went on filing
appeal and revision forcing the opposite party to file cross
appeal or revision or even writ for her back wages and other
benefits. Not one authority, even in the cooperative
department found in favour of petitioner. Yet the
petitioner had the obstinacy not only to approach this Court
but to place the blame of inordinate delay on adjudicatory
process. Such obstinacy without the least regard of the
financial implications could only be indulged by a public
body like the petitioner as those entrusted to look after
public bodies affairs do not have any personal involvement
and the money that they squander in such litigation is not
their own.
Sri Arun Jaitley the learned senior counsel attempted to
assail the finding recorded by the High Court and the Labour
Court. Suffice it to say that the conclusions arrived at
are not only well reasoned but are based on material on
record and could not be demonstrated to be vitiated by any
error of Law.
Having failed to persuade us on merits the Learned counsel
attempted to highlight the financial difficulty of the
petitioner and placed reliance on Surendra Kumar Verma &
Ors. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court New, Delhi & Another [1980]4 SCC 443 in support of the
submission that
480
the Courts while directing payment of back wages should
exercise discretion considering the financial viability of
the employer. It was urged that the respondent has been
pursuing her remedy for 16 years therefore the petitioner
whose profit margin is very low and the overhead expenses
are very high resulting in accumulation of losses for which
financial assistance has been granted by State as well as
the Central Government for rehabilitation subject to the
condition that the amount shall not be utilised towards past
debts, shall be rendered in serious predicament brought upon
it by the respondent for which it is not responsible.
Nothing is farther than truth. It was other way round. In
fact it was the petitioner who had disputed, the finding of
the Registrar, directing reinstatment without back wages,
and made respondent to run from court to court. When the
petitioner did not reinstate her and filed an appeal she too
filed a cross appeal for back wages. It is more than
apparent that it was the petitioner who was not complying
with the orders passed by the authorities from time to time
and was leaving no stone unturned to see that an illegal
order passed by its officer was upheld. We, therefore, do
not see any justification for exercising discretion in
favour of such a litigant.
Public money has been wasted due to adamant behaviour not
only of the officer who terminated the services but also due
to cantankerous attitude adoped by those responsible for
pursuing the litigation before the one or the other
authority. They have literally persecuted her. Despite
unequal strenght the opposite party has managed to survive.
We are informed that the opposite party has been reinstated.
This was put forward as bonafide conduct of petitioner to
persuade us to modify the order in respect of back wages.
Facts speak otherwise. Working life of opposite party has
been lost in this tortuous and painful litigation of more
than twenty years. For such thoughtless acts of its
officers the petitioner-society has to suffer and pay an
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4
amount exceeding three lakhs is indeed pitiable. But
considering the agony and suffering of the opposite party
that amount cannot be a proper recompense. We, therefore,
dismiss this petition as devoid of any merit and direct the
petitioner to comply with the directions of the High Court
within the time granted by it. We however leave it open to
the society to replenish itself and recover the amount of
back wages paid by it to the opposite party from the
personal salary of the officers of the society who have been
responsible for this endless litigation including the
officer who was responsible for terminating the services of
the opposite patty. We may clarify that the permission
given, shall have nothing to do with the direction to pay
the respondent her back wages. Step if any to recover the
amount shall be taken only after payment is made to the
opposite party as directed by the High Court.
SPS. SLP dismissed.
481