2022 (8) TMI 1367 - SC - Indian Laws

Termination of service - Allegation of impersonating his brother in a Written Test conducted by the Bank through the Banking Service Recruitment Board, Lucknow - Whether the action of the management of the Central Bank of India, Gwalior in dismissing from service Shri Dragendra Singh Jadon, Agricultural Assistant with effect from 29.01.1982 is justified? HELD THAT - The learned Single Bench of the High Court rightly granted relief to the Respondent. By the impugned judgment and order, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the Appeal of the Appellants and directed that the Respondent would have to be treated in service from the date of removal till the date of actual reinstatement in service and would accordingly be entitled to seniority and the right to be considered for promotion, but would not be entitled to back wages. There are no infirmity with the concurrent findings of the Single Bench and the Division Bench of the High Court. There is a difference between reappointment and reinstatement. Reinstatement means to return a person or thing to its previous position or status. An order of reinstatement puts a person back to the same position. The Tribunal had granted the Respondent, the relief of reinstatement. Considering that the Respondent had not actually rendered service to the Appellant-Bank and that he had been earning in the intervening period, the Tribunal denied him back wages. The Tribunal and the High Court (both the Single Bench and the Division Bench) have in effect and substance found the termination of service of the Respondent to be wrongful - Appellant-Bank cannot take advantage of its own wrong of wrongfully dismissing the Respondent from service, to deny him the benefit of seniority, promotion and other benefits to which he would have been entitled, if he had attended to his duties. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Termination of service based on impersonation allegation.
2. Industrial dispute regarding reinstatement and back wages.
3. Writ petitions challenging the tribunal's award and seeking reinstatement benefits.
4. Application of principles of res judicata in writ proceedings.

Issue 1: Termination of service based on impersonation allegation
The respondent was appointed as an Agricultural Assistant in the Appellant-Bank in 1975. Subsequently, he was accused of impersonation during a written test in 1979 and was terminated in 1982 after a disciplinary enquiry. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court later found the dismissal unjustified in 2008, ordering reinstatement without back wages due to the respondent's employment during the interim period.

Issue 2: Industrial dispute regarding reinstatement and back wages
The respondent filed a writ petition seeking full back wages, continuity in service, and other benefits after the Tribunal's award. The High Court initially dismissed the writ petitions filed by both parties in 2012. However, in 2015, the Single Bench allowed the respondent's writ petition, emphasizing that reinstatement should entitle the employee to all benefits except back wages.

Issue 3: Writ petitions challenging the tribunal's award and seeking reinstatement benefits
The respondent filed subsequent writ petitions seeking notional pay fixation and salary from the date of the Tribunal's award, along with seniority considerations. The Appellant-Bank contested the maintainability of the writ petition based on res judicata principles, arguing against granting additional benefits beyond reinstatement.

Issue 4: Application of principles of res judicata in writ proceedings
The High Court upheld the respondent's entitlement to seniority and promotion benefits post-reinstatement, despite the denial of back wages. The Court clarified the distinction between reinstatement and reappointment, emphasizing the restoration of the employee to the previous position. The judgment dismissed the appeal, affirming the respondent's right to benefits post-reinstatement, as the termination was deemed wrongful by the Tribunal and the High Court. The application of res judicata was analyzed, concluding that the subsequent writ petition addressed distinct issues from the earlier proceedings, justifying the relief granted to the respondent.