EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD. Vs. MISRI YADAV & ORS.

Supreme Court of India

Appeal (Civil), 371 of 2016, Judgment Date: Jan 19, 2016

                                                  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 service as per  order  dated  10th  April,
1982.   The  Industrial  Tribunal  while  holding  that  the  punishment  of
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 the  Writ  Petition  No.13256  of  2006
vide order dated 7th December, 2006.  In appeal, the Division Bench  of  the
High Court took the view that the direction for 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.
(4)         When the matter came before this Court on 12th  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 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 dismissal,  that is 10th  April,  1982,   for  all  purposes  except
backwages between 10th April, 1982 and 12th 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  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.