2003 (11) TMI 619 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking to grant re-instatement with full back wages and consequential benefits to the respondent who was involved in a criminal case - HELD THAT - We are of the view that it is well accepted that an order rejecting a special leave petition at the threshold without detailed reasons therefore does not constitute any declaration of law by this Court or constitute a binding precedent. Though exception taken to that part of the order directing re-instatement cannot be sustained and the respondent has to be re-instated, in service, for the reason that the earlier discharge was on account of those criminal proceedings and conviction only, the appellants are well within their rights to deny back wages to the respondent for the period he was not in service. The appellants cannot be made liable to pay for the period for which they could not avail of the services of the respondent. The High Court, in our view, committed a grave error, in allowing back wages also, without adverting to all such relevant aspects and considerations. Consequently, the order of the High Court in so far as it directed payment of back wages are liable to be and is hereby set aside. The respondent will be entitled to back wages from the date of acquittal and except for the purpose of denying the respondent actual payment of back wages, that period also will be counted as period of service, without any break. The re-instatement, if not already done, in terms of the order of the High Court will be done within thirty days from today. The appeal is allowed and disposed of on the above terms.

Summary

Issues involved:
The appeal against the order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh granting re-instatement with full back wages and consequential benefits to the respondent who was involved in a criminal case.

Details of the Judgment:
The respondent, along with his brother, was charge-sheeted for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. He was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge but acquitted by the Division Bench of the High Court. The appellants challenged the re-instatement with back wages granted by the High Court.

The appellants argued that the department was not concerned with the criminal case and should not be liable for back wages. The respondent cited a similar case where back wages were granted. The Supreme Court clarified that dismissing a special leave petition does not constitute a binding precedent, unlike a decision on merits. The Court agreed with a previous decision that if an employee is acquitted after being convicted, the department cannot be faulted for keeping them out of service.

The Court held that the respondent should be re-instated but denied back wages for the period he was not in service due to the criminal proceedings. The High Court's decision to grant back wages was deemed erroneous, and it was set aside. The respondent would be entitled to back wages from the date of acquittal, counting that period as service without a break. Re-instatement was to be done within thirty days.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, and the respondent was to be re-instated without back wages for the period he was out of service due to the criminal case.