JAYANTIBHAI RAOJIBHAI PATEL versus MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, NARKHED & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 11 S.C.R. 483 · Decided: 21-08-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
483
JAYANTIBHAI RAOJIBHAI PATEL
v.
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, NARKHED & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6188 of 2019)
AUGUST 21, 2019
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Service law: Termination of service – Payment of back
wages – On facts, enquiry conducted against appellant-headmaster
for alleged misappropriation of funds and appellant found not guilty
– However, second enquiry conducted, despite appellant’s objection
and appellant found guilty and terminated from services – In writ
petition, the High Court set aside the termination order, however
held that since the appellant had attained superannuation, he would
not be paid back wages for the period he did not render services –
On appeal, held: If the employer wants to deny back wages to the
employee or contest his entitlement to get consequential benefits,
then it is for him/her to specifically plead and prove that during the
intervening period the employee was gainfully employed and was
getting the same emoluments – Denial of back wages to an employee,
who has suffered due to an illegal act of the employer would amount
to indirectly punishing the employee concerned and rewarding the
employer by relieving him of the obligation to pay back wages
including the emolument – Thus, the High Court was not justified in
denying the back-wages to the appellant – Appellant be paid Rs 5
lakhs in full and final settlement of his claim for back-wages.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In the instant case, the first inquiry resulted in
a report which came to the conclusion that the charge of
misconduct was not substantiated. Upon finding that the convening
of a fresh inquiry without recording reasons was contrary to law,
the High Court would have ordinarily granted liberty to the
Municipal Council to take a fresh decision after due notice to the
appellant. Such a course of action was, however, rendered
   [2019] 11 S.C.R. 483
483
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
484
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 11 S.C.R.
impracticable by supervening events. The writ petition instituted
by the appellant before the High Court in 1996 remained pending
for nearly eighteen years. The appellant had been removed from
service on 29 June 1996. Considering the lapse of time, reopening
the proceedings would not be expedient in the interest of justice
particularly when the appellant had, in the meantime, attained
the age of superannuation in 2005. Relegating the appellant to a
protracted course of action by restoring the proceedings before
the disciplinary authority would also not be fair and proper after a
lapse of nearly fourteen years since his retirement. [Para 12]
[483-H; 494-A-C]
1.2 Having due regard to the principles enunciated in
Deepali Surwase’s case by this Court that if the employer wants
to deny back wages to the employee or contest his entitlement
to get consequential benefits, then it is for him/her to specifically
plead and prove that during the intervening period the employee
was gainfully employed and was getting the same emoluments.
The denial of back wages to an employee, who has suffered due
to an illegal act of the employer would amount to indirectly
punishing the employee concerned and rewarding the employer
by relieving him of the obligation to pay back wages including
the emolument, the High Court was not, justified in denying the
back-wages to the appellant altogether. Bearing in mind the
circumstances, a lumpsum compensation should be directed to
be paid. [Para 1, 13] [491-E-G; 494-D]
Deepali Gundu Surwase v Kranti Junior Adhyapak
Mahavidyalaya (2013) 10 SCC 324 : [2013] 9 SCR 1
- relied on.
1.3 The ends of justice would be met by directing that the
appellant be paid an amount quantified at Rs 5 lakhs in full and
final settlement of his claim for back-wages for the period between
the date of the order of removal and the date on which he attained
the age of superannuation. This would be in addition to the retiral
benefits to which he is entitled in terms of the order of the High
Court. [Para 14] [494-E]
Hindustan Tin Works (P) Ltd v. Employees (1979) 2 SCC
80 : [1979] 1 SCR 563 ; CSHA University v. BD Goyal
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
485
(2010) 15 SCC 776 ; Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
(1980) 4 SCC 443 : [1981] 1 SCR 789 ; P.G.I. of
Medical Education & Research v. Raj Kumar (2001) 2
SCC 54 : [2000] 4 Suppl. SCR 350 ; Indian Rly.
Construction Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar (2003) 4 SCC
579 : [2003] 2 SCR 387 – referred to.
Case Law Re

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.