Full Judgment Text
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.10574 OF 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 19953 of 2015)
The Life Insurance Corporation
of India ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Sri Kalappa M. Sankad (D)
Thr. Lrs. & Ors. ….Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Leave granted.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2018.10.12
15:50:40 IST
Reason:
1
2. This appeal is filed against the impugned final
judgment and order dated 13.02.2015 passed by
the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ
Appeal No. 3120 of 2014(SRES) whereby the High
Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant.
3. The issue involved in the appeal is short. It
would be clear from the facts mentioned herein
below.
4. Mr. Kalappa M. Sankad was the original
respondent herein. He died pending appeal and,
therefore, represented by his legal representatives
as respondents to continue the lis .
5. Mr. Kalappa was working with the appellant
Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) since 1988. He
joined as an Apprentice Development Officer at
Gulbarga office and then at Bijapur office.
6. The appellant (LIC) terminated the services of
Mr. Kalappa by order dated 10.4.2013. Mr. Kalappa
2
felt aggrieved and filed departmental appeal against
his termination. It was dismissed. He then filed
writ petition in the High Court of Karnataka
challenging his termination order on several
grounds.
7. By order dated 21.11.2014, the learned Single
Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the
termination order. The LIC (appellant herein) felt
aggrieved and filed intra court appeal before the
Division Bench.
8. By impugned order, the Division Bench
dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of
learned Single Judge, which gives rise to filing of the
present appeal by way of special leave to appeal in
this Court.
9. Heard Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, learned
senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. R. Basant,
learned senior counsel for the respondent(s).
3
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we
are not inclined to interfere in the impugned order
and dispose of the appeal as indicated below for
ensuring its compliance by the appellant.
11. We have perused the order of the learned
Single Judge and the impugned order, which
resulted in quashing Mr. Kalappa's termination
order resulting in directing his reinstatement in
service.
12. Having gone through the orders, in the facts of
this case, we do not find any good ground to uphold
the termination order and set aside the impugned
order.
13. In our view, the two courts below rightly set
aside the termination order, which does not call for
any interference in this appeal.
4
14. Since Mr. Kalappa expired during pendency of
this litigation, the question of his reinstatement in
the services of LIC does not arise. It is not now
possible.
15. The only question, which now survives for
consideration, is in relation to payment of back
wages payable to the present respondents (legal
representatives of Mr. Kalappa) as a result of setting
aside of the termination order of Mr. Kalappa.
16. On this issue, we have heard both the learned
counsels who gave their respective calculations. We
have perused their statements. We may consider it
apposite to mention that this matter did not arise
from Labour Tribunal but arose from the writ
petition filed in the High Court.
17. It is for this reason, the parties did not adduce
any evidence on the question as to whether Mr.
Kalappa, after termination of his services from LIC,
5
was gainfully employed anywhere or not. There was
neither any pleading, nor evidence much less
finding either way on this issue in these
proceedings.
18. It is for this reason and keeping in view all
facts and circumstances of the case, we have
examined the question of total payment of back
wages payable to the respondents.
19. Mr. Kalappa was entitled for gross arrears of
salary and CMD/TR GR/PLE DIFF for the period
from April 2013 to August 2016. Keeping in view
his last drawn salary which was calculated by the
appellant in their statement on the basis of his
revised basic pay scale, the total arrears towards
salary is worked out to Rs.20,21,250.18 plus Rs.
35,857 i.e. Rs. 20,57,107. 18.
6
20. It is not in dispute that there were certain
recoveries also which were to be made from Mr.
Kalappa under specific heads by the appellant such
as (1) Provident Fund contributionRs.1,69,771.00
(2) Income TaxRs.4,00,000.00 and (3) recovery
against loans & advances availed of by Mr. Kalappa
while he was in serviceRs. 2,28,023.00 totalling to
Rs. 12,59,313.18 .
21. In our view, taking into account the overall
factual scenario brought on record by the parties
arising in the case coupled with what we have
observed supra , the respondents are held entitled to
claim back wages amounting to Rs. 20,57,107.18
minus Rs. .
12,59,313.18
22. In other words, after deducting Rs.
12,59,313.18 from Rs.20,57,107.18, the balance
7
amount be paid to the respondents after making
proper verification and calculation, if need be.
23. We make it clear that we have not accepted the
claim made by the respondents for arrears of salary,
which we find was essentially based on several pay
rise and notional promotion etc. In our view, it is
not legally sustainable in the facts of this case.
24. Let the aforementioned amount be paid to the
respondents by the appellant (LIC) within 3 months
as an outer limit after again making proper
calculation under all the heads mentioned in their
statement.
25. In view of the forgoing discussion, the appeal
stands accordingly disposed of finally.
………...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
8
....
……..................................J.
[INDU MALHOTRA]
New Delhi;
October 12, 2018.
9