CANARA BANK BY ITS M.D.versusDAMODHAR GOVIND IDOORKAR & ORS.

                          (2009] 4 S.C.R. 586


A               CANARA BANK BY ITS M.D.
                              V.
            DAMODHAR GOVIND IDOORKAR & ORS.
                Civil Appeal No. 1716 of 2009
                          MARCH 18, 2009
B
         [TARUN CHATTERJEE AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.]
        Service law Back wages - Termination of services on       ..
                                                                  ~
  the ground that employee secured job in reserved category
  by producing false caste certificate - Writ petition -
c Termination set aside without back wages - Single judge
  directed Tehsildar to conduct enquiry about the caste status
  of employee - Order of Single Judge challenged so far as it
  denied relief of back wages - During pendency of appeal,
  Tehsildar in compliance with order of Single judge passed
  order that employee was not scheduled caste but a backward
D class - Order of Tehsildar challenged again - Division Bench
  of High Court directed employer to pay full back wages which
  had accumulated during pendency of his termination - On
  appeal, the order of Division Bench of High Court modified -
  Employer directed to pay 50% of back wages instead of full
E back wages.
         CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1716
    of 2009
         From the Judgement and Order dated 19.12.2006 of the
F   Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal
    No. 197 of 2006. (GM-CC)
          Hetu Aroara, Anitha Abraham, Denkila, Naveen R. Nath,
    for the Appellant.
         P.P. Singh, Sanjay R. Hedge, for the Respondent.
G
        The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
        TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.
         1. Leave gra;ited.
H                                586
                          CANARA BANK BY ITS M.D. V. DAMODHAR     587
                     GOVIND IDOORKAR & ORS. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. ]
      '
          _,,            2. Respondent No.1 Darnodhar Govind ldoorkar was an A
                   employee of the appellant - Canara Bank. The services of
                   respondent No.1 was terminated on the ground that he had
                   secured employment in reserved category by producing a false
                   caste certificate. The order of termination was challenged by
                   way of a writ petition filed by respondent No.1. A learned Single B

....       }.-
                   Judge of the Karnataka High Court had allowed the said writ
                   petition and quashed the termination order and directed the
                   reinstatement of respondent No.1 without any consequential
                   benefits such as payment of back wages. The learned Single
                   Judge also directed the Tehsildar to conduct an enquiry to          c
                   ascertain whether respondent No.1 belonged to scheduled
                   caste category or not. By a subsequent order, it was clarified
                   that the Bank was free to take whatever action on the basis of
                   the enquiry to be conducted by the Tehsildar on the question of
          1        caste certificate of the· respondent No.1. The respondent No.1
                                                                                     D
                   had challenged the aforesaid order by filing an appeal before
                   the Division Bench of the High Court in so far as it denied him
                   consequential relief of back wages. When the said appeal was
                   pending before the Division Bench, the Tehsildar, in compliance
~                  with the order of the learned Single Judge, after hearing the
"''                respondent No.1, had passed the order holding that respondent E
                   No.1 was not a scheduled caste, but it was held that respondent
              J.   No.1 belonged to Baandhi community which was a backward
                   class.

                          3. The order of the Tehsildar, after remand, was again       F
                   challenged by respondent No.1 by filing a writ application. In
                   this background, the Division Bench by the impugned order
                   directed the Bank to pay full back wages to respondent No.1,
                   which had accumulated during the pendency of his termination.
           J       It is this order, which is under challenge before us.
                                                                                       G
                         4. From the above, it is clear that the only question which
                   needs to be decided in this appeal is whether the Division Bench
                   of the High Court was justified in directing the full back wages
                   to be paid to the appellant in the facts and circumstances of the
                   present case.                                                       H
    588       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2009] 4 S.C.R


A         5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
    considered the entire materials on record and after considering
    the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and after
    giving serious consideration to the facts and circumstances of
    the case, we are of the view that the order of the Division Bench
B   of the High Court, which is impugned before us, should be
    suitably modified by directing the appellant-Bank to pay 50% of
    the back wages to the respondent No.1 instead of full back
    wages within two months from the date of supply of a copy of            •
    this order to the Bank Authorities.
C        6. Accordingly this appeal is disposed of with the above
    modification. There will be no order as to costs.

    D.G.                                       Appeal disposed of.




                                                                        >




                                                                        \