2003 (2) TMI 468 - SC - Indian Laws

Entitlement of service and retiral benefits of respondent No.1 (employee) Held that - In the case at hand, there was no challenge to the order of termination for six years, as indicated above. Some time was lost because the State and its functionaries on the one hand and the appellant on the other differed on the issue as to who was liable to make the payment in terms of the first direction of the High Court. It cannot also be lost sight of that the High Court while fixing a sum of Rs.30,000/- to be paid in terms of its order dated 18.9.1991 recorded a finding about lack of aptitude of the employee and the likelihood of absence in sincerity of work. Taking all these aspects into consideration, ends of justice would be best served if the appellants are directed to pay a sum of Rs.35,000/- in addition to what has already paid, within a period of four weeks from today. In case the payment is not made within the stipulated time, it shall carry interest @ 18% per annum from today till the amount is actually paid which shall, in any event, be not later than four months from today. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Entitlement to service and retiral benefits of an employee, challenge to judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, non-payment of directed amount leading to interest claims, review petition and subsequent appeals, dispute over liability for payment, reinstatement order by Division Bench, consideration of back wages and interest.

Entitlement to Service and Retiral Benefits:
The appeal challenged the judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court regarding the entitlement of service and retiral benefits of the employee. The employee, who was employed as a Lab Assistant, had faced termination of services due to charges against him. The High Court directed the payment of a lump-sum amount, noting the lack of aptitude for service by the employee. Subsequent legal proceedings, including a review petition and appeals, were filed by both the employee and the management, leading to directions for payment by the State and the District Inspector of Schools.

Non-Payment of Directed Amount and Interest Claims:
The High Court's orders for payment were not initially complied with, leading to a dispute over liability for payment and subsequent interest claims. The employee filed a contempt petition due to non-compliance. Eventually, the directed amounts, including interest, were paid after several legal interventions and corrections in the rate of interest.

Review Petition and Subsequent Appeals:
The employee filed a review petition in the High Court challenging the non-payment and seeking a review of the earlier order. The High Court dismissed the review petition, leading to an appeal before the Division Bench. The Division Bench allowed the appeal by directing reinstatement of the employee, noting the delay in payment even though it was passed on consent.

Dispute Over Liability for Payment:
There was a dispute over the liability for making the payment as directed by the High Court. The employee and the management differed on this issue, leading to further legal applications and directions for payment by the State and the District Inspector of Schools.

Consideration of Back Wages and Interest:
The Supreme Court considered the issue of back wages, citing legal precedents that highlight the discretionary nature of awarding full back wages upon reinstatement. Factors such as lack of challenge to the termination order for six years, delays in payment, and findings of lack of aptitude for service were considered. The Court directed the appellants to pay an additional sum within a specified time frame, failing which would accrue interest until payment is made.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal to the extent indicated, emphasizing the importance of considering all relevant circumstances in determining back wages upon reinstatement and directing the appellants to make additional payments within a specified time frame to ensure justice is served.