Full Judgment Text
1
NON
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5425 OF 2008
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 23319 of 2007)
M.P. Electricity Board & Ors. …
Appellants
VERSUS
Maiku Prasad ….Respondent
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
th
2. On 13 of December, 2007, this Court issued notice on
this Special Leave Petition and passed the following
order :-
“Learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that the respondent has already been
reinstated.
Issue notice limited to the question of payment
of 50 per cent of the back wages.
In the meantime, execution proceedings are
stayed.”
1
2
th
3. From the office report dated 7 of August, 2008, it
appears that as per an order passed by the learned
st
Registrar of this Court dated 31 of March, 2008, Dasti
notice was issued to the sole respondent and an affidavit
of service has been filed by the petitioner stating therein
that the sole respondent has already been served. In
spite of service, no one appeared on his behalf at the
time of hearing of the appeal.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and
considering the facts that the service of the respondent
was terminated as he was unauthorisedly absent from
th rd
duty from 15 of February, 1984 to 3 of March, 1984
and after the order of termination respondent had not
worked for a long time with the appellant board till he
was reinstated, we feel it appropriate to modify the
award in question to the extent of payment of fifty per
cent of back wages to the respondent instead of full back
wages, as directed by the Labour Court and affirmed by
the High Court.
2
3
5. Accordingly we modify the award in question to the
above extent, that is to say, that fifty per cent back wages
shall be paid to the respondent instead of full back wages
as directed by the Labour Court and the High Court and
direct the appellant to pay such amount of back wages to
the respondent within four months from the date of supply
of a copy of this order. We keep it on record, as we have
th
already noted in our order dated 13 of December, 2007,
that the respondent has already been reinstated in service
by the appellant.
6. Accordingly, the impugned Judgment of the High
Court is modified to the extent indicated above. The appeal
is thus disposed of. There will no order as to costs.
……….………………J.
[TARUN CHATTERJEE]
………………………J.
[AFTAB ALAM]
NEW DELHI
September 02, 2008.
3
4
4