KRUSHNA NARAYAN WANJARI Vs. THE JAI BHARTI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, HINGANGHAT THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND ANR.

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Civil), 5965-5966 of 2016, Judgment Date: Jul 08, 2016

                                                              NON-REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                     CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5965-5966 OF 2016
             (Arising out of SLP ( C) Nos. 28170-28171 of 2015)


      KRUSHNA NARAYAN WANJARI                               PETITIONER

                                    VERSUS

      THE JAI BHARTI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA,
      HINGANGHAT THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND ANR.            RESPONDENTS


                               J U D G M E N T

      KURIAN,J.

  1.        Leave granted.

2.          The limited question that arises in these cases is  with  regard
to the back wages  payable  to  the  appellant.   The  Industrial  Tribunal,
Maharashtra allowed the  complaint  and   directed  the  respondent  to  pay
salary to the appellant for the period from March, 1996 to  September,  1997
and December, 2001 to October, 2002.

3.          The High Court took the  view  that  the  Muster  Rolls  do  not
indicate that  the  complainant  was  present  for  performing  the  duties.
Though, the appellant attempted a review by  producing  numerous  documents,
the High Court refused to entertain the same.

4.          Having regard to the  fact  that  the  documents  were  produced
before the High Court, we are of the  view  that  the  High  Court  was  not
justified in refusing to look  into  the  same.   Afterall,  the  Industrial
Court had looked into the entire materials and had awarded  the  salary  for
the disputed period.  Unless the approach is wholly perverse  in  the  sense
that the Tribunal acted  on  no  evidence,  the  High  Court  under  Article
226/227 is not justified in interfering with the award.  It is not  a  court
of first appeal to reappreciate the  evidence.   Therefore,  the  appeal  is
allowed  and  the  impugned  orders  are  set  aside  and  the  order  dated
14.03.2012  passed by the Industrial Court,  Nagpur  Bench,  Maharashtra  is
restored.

5.          Learned counsel for the Management submits that being a  hundred
per cent grant-in-aid institution, the liability  is  on  the  State.  There
cannot be any quarrel with the above submission.  The amounts that  have  to
be paid as per the order of the  Industrial  Court,  Maharashtra  being  the
salary, are to be paid by the State.  The amounts due as per the  Industrial
Court's award, shall be paid within a period of three months from  the  date
of production of a copy of  this  judgment  before  the  Education  Officer,
failing which, the same would carry 12% interest from the date of  order  of
the Industrial Court and the officers concerned would personally  be  liable
for the same.


6.    The appeals are disposed of with no order as to costs.

                                                         .................J.
                                                         [KURIAN JOSEPH]


                                                   .......................J.
                                                 [ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN]

NEW DELHI;
 JULY 08, 2016