Vinod Pandey vs Laxmi Mahila Sahkari Bank Maryadit

Heard Mr. C.J.K.Rao, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant in WA No. 388/2020 and respondent No. 2 in WA No. 391/2020. Also heard Ms. Diksha Gouraha, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant in WA No. 391/2020 and respondent No. 1 in WA No. 388/2020 as well as Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents No. 2 to 5 in WA No. 388/2020 and respondents No. 1, 3 to 5 in WA No. 391/2020.

WA No. 388/2020 is presented against an order dated 16.07.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(S) No. 955/2011, filed by the respondent No. 1-Laxmi Mahila Sahkari Bank Maryadit (for short, the Bank).

At this juncture, it is also to be noticed that against the very same judgment, the respondent No. 1-Bank has filed an appeal, registered as WA No. 391/2020, which is listed today alongwith WA No. 388/2020.

At the very outset, Ms. Gouraha, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant-Bank (in WA No. 391/2020) submits that in view of the opportunity granted by the learned Single Judge to initiate a fresh departmental proceeding, such proceeding had been initiated and therefore, she has been instructed to submit that this appeal has been rendered infructuous.

In view of the above submission, WA No. 391/2020 is dismissed as infructuous.

Mr. C.J.K.Rao, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant-employee (in WA No. 388/2020) submits that the learned Single Judge has upheld the order of reinstatement granted by the State Government. However, the appellant is aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge to the extent that the learned Single Judge has granted back-wages only from the date of filing of the writ petition and not from the date of termination of the service, which was on 11.12.2004. It is submitted by Mr. Rao that when the termination order has been set aside and the reinstatement has been allowed, as a logical corollary, back-wages from the date of termination ought to have followed. He further submits that although the employee was reinstated, the appellant has not been paid his back-wages as ordered by the learned Single Judge, though there is no stay of payment of back-wages.

With regard to grant of back-wages, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Novartis India Limited v. State of West Bengal & Others, reported in (2009) 3 SCC 124, observed as follows:

“22. It is trite that for the purpose of grant of back wages, conduct of the workman concerned also plays a vital role. Each decision, as regards grant of back wages or the quantum thereof, would, therefore, depend on the fact of each case. Back wages are ordinarily to be granted, keeping in view the principles of grant of damages in mind. It cannot be claimed as a matter of right.”

In C.N.Malla v. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Others, reported in (2009) 9 SCC 597, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:

“11. The legal position is fairly settled by a catena of decisions that direction to pay back wages in its entirety is not automatic consequent upon declaration of dismissal order bad in law. The concept of discretion is inbuilt in such exercise. The court is required to exercise discretion reasonably and judiciously keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. Each case, of course, would depend on its own facts.”

A perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge goes to show that the learned Single Judge has recorded a categorical finding that during the interregnum period, the appellant had started his own business of sale and purchase of second hand vehicles.

Having regard to the above, we find that the learned Single Judge was justified in not granting back-wages from the date of termination. Taking that view, we find no merit in this appeal.

However, the respondent-Bank is directed to pay the back-wages in terms of the order passed by the learned Single Judge within a period of 60 days from the receipt of a copy of this order failing which the appellant-employee shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the writ petition i.e. 11.02.2011, till the payment is made.