Full Judgment Text
1
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.371 OF 2016
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No.17347/2010)
Eastern Coalfields Ltd. .. Appellant(s)
Versus
Misri Yadav & Ors. .. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN J.
Leave granted.
(2) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(3) Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against
respondent No.1 culminating in his dismissal from
th
service as per order dated 10 April, 1982. The
Industrial Tribunal while holding that the punishment of
JUDGMENT
reduction of two increments will be sufficient for the
misconduct, directed reinstatement of the workman with
50% back wages from the date of his dismissal till his
reinstatement. This order was challenged by the
appellant before the High Court. The learned Single
Judge of the High Court upheld the order and dismissed
th
the Writ Petition No.13256 of 2006 vide order dated 7
December, 2006. In appeal, the Division Bench of the
High Court took the view that the direction for
Page 1
2
reinstatement was in order whereas the Tribunal had no
jurisdiction to substitute the punishment of dismissal
with the stoppage of two increments and therefore the
appellant was given liberty to pass fresh orders on any
punishment other than dismissal.
th
(4) When the matter came before this Court on 12
July, 2010, an interim order was passed to the following
effect; “There shall be stay of back wages subject to
the condition that the workman is re-instated within two
weeks from today.”
(5) We are informed that the workman had since been
reinstated and he has crossed the age of superannuation.
Therefore, what survives in this appeal is only the
issue with regard to the continuity of service and back
wages. Having heard Mr. Anip Sachthey, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant and Ms. Shivali Sinha
learned counsel for the respondent appointed by the
JUDGMENT
Supreme Court Legal Services Committee to represent the
Respondent No.1, we are of the view that the interest of
justice would be served in case Respondent No.1 is
granted continuity of service from the date of
th
dismissal, that is 10 April, 1982, for all purposes
th th
except backwages between 10 April, 1982 and 12 July,
2010 and the workman is granted 50% of the backwages
from 20.11.1988 (the date of order of the Tribunal) to
12.07.2010 with a further clarification that in case the
workman had been granted wages under Section 17-B of the
Page 2
3
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 during that period, he
will not be paid further back wages. Ordered
accordingly. We further make it clear that this order is
passed limiting to the facts of this case only and it
will not be treated as a precedent.
(6) The appeal is disposed of with no order as to
costs.
....................J.
[ KURIAN JOSEPH ]
…....................J.
[ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN]
NEW DELHI,
JANUARY 19, 2016.
JUDGMENT
Page 3