Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

C.S. JOSHIversusINDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, KANPUR AND ANR.

Citation
1997 INSC 314
Decided
21 March 1997
Disposal
Leave Granted & Dismissed

Holding

The High Court’s discretionary reduction of back‑wages to 25% meets the ends of justice and is a valid exercise of its discretion.

Summary

C.S. Joshi, a lower‑division clerk at IIT Kanpur, was removed for fabricating records and misappropriating funds. Under Section 4‑K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court ordered his reinstatement with 50% back‑wages. The institute obtained a writ petition and the High Court reduced the back‑wages to 25% while maintaining reinstatement; the employee’s separate writ petition sought 100% back‑wages. Both orders were set aside by the Supreme Court and the matter remitted. After remand, the High Court restored the 25% award and dismissed the employee’s petition. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s discretionary reduction to 25% was a valid exercise of its powers and that further remand would serve no useful purpose, dismissing the appeal.

Issues considered

  • Whether the High Court’s discretionary order reducing back‑wages to 25% under Section 4‑K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act is valid.
  • Whether the matter required further remand after the Supreme Court’s direction.

Legislation cited

Subjects

Labour LawIndustrial DisputesSection 4-KReinstatementBack wagesDiscretionary orderRemoval from service

Judgment

    -'--{___


-                                               C.S. JOSHI
                                                     v.
                         INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, KANPUR
                                                                                              A


                                         AND ANR.

                                            MARCH 21, 1997
                                                                                              B
                             [K. RAMASWAMY AND KT. THOMAS, JJ.)

                       Labour Law :

                       UP. Industlial Disputes Act, 1947:
                                                                                              c
                     S. 4-K-Removal from service-Reference to Labour Courr-Labour
               Court making the award reinstating the workman with 50% 7'Jf back
               wages-High Court passing a discretional)' order that 25% of back wages
               would meet the ends of justice-Held, order of High Court being a discretion-
               wy one, no useful purpose would be se1ved by funher remittance-Appeal          D
               dismissed.

                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2553 of
               1997.

                    From the Judgment and Order dated 29.3.96 of the Allahabad High           E
               Court in C.M.W.P. No. 8196 of 1986.

                       Mrs. S. Janani for the Appellant.

                       Nikhil Nayyar for T.V.S.N. Chari for the Respondents.
                                                                                              F
                       The following Order of the Court was delivered :

                       Leave granted.

                      This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the learned
               single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, made on March 29, 1996 in Civil G
               Misc. Writ Petition No. 8106/86.

                      The appellant, while working as Lower Division Clerk, is said to have
               fabricated the record and misappropriated the funds of the respondent
               Institution. As a result show cause notice was issued and he was removed
               from service. Subsequently, on a reference under Section 4-K of the U.P.       H
                                                   333
    334                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    (1997] 3 S.C.R.

A Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court had in the award directed
    reinstatement of the appellant with 50% of the back-wages. Thereon, the            -
    respondent filed the writ petition. Similarly, the appellant also filed the writ
    petition. Both the writ petitions came to have been decided on different
    dates. The writ petition filed by the respondent-institution had come up in
    the first instance where the learned single judge, while maintaining the
B
    order of reinstatement, ordered reducing the back-wages to 25%. When
    the writ petition of the appellant had come up, the learned Judge directed
    payment of 100% back-wages. The matter was carried in appeal to his
    Court. This Court set side both the orders and remitted the matter for
    reconsideration. After remand, the learned single judge considered the
C   matter and restored the order passed by him on the writ petition filed by
    the respondent-Management and dismissed the writ petition of the appel-
    lant. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

           The learned Judge felt it, in his discretion, to be expedient that 25%
    of the back-wages would meet the ends of justice. It being a discretionary
D   order, we think that no useful purpose would be served for further remit-
    tance.

           The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

    R.P.                                                        Appeal dismissed.
E


Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "Labour Law"Sign in to search

For a digitally signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's own website. Only the court can issue one.