LexKALLAKURICHI TALUK CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. versus M. MARIA SOOSAI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2010] 6 S.C.R. 320 KALLAKURICHI TALUK CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. v. M. MARIA SOOSAI & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 4357 of 2010) MAY 6, 2010 [ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] Labour Laws - Reinstatement with back wages - Absence without leave - Deemed as resignation as per Bye- C Laws and Rules - Reappointment on compassionate ground ordered - After re-appointment, employee again going on leave without permission - Absertee again deemed as his resignation - Writ petition by employee seeking his re- instatement in compliance with order of re-appointment - D Single Judge of High Court dismissing the petition holding that the employee concealed the fact of his re-appointment - Division Bench of High Court allowing the writ appeal, holding that despite the order of re-appointment by respondent No. 3, he was not employed and directed E reinstatement with back wages - In compliance of Division Bench order, employee reinstated - Thereafter, again he failed to report for work - In departmental inquiry for misconduct found guilty - On appeal, held: The decision of High Court was based on erroneous facts - On facts, High F Court order not sustainable so far as payment of back wages and other benefits are concerned - Interference with the order regarding reinstatement not called for in view of his having been found guilty in domestic inquiry - The order is modified to the extent that the employee is entitled to full back wages from the date of his joining duty on reinstatement in G compliance of order of Division Bench till the date he failed to report for work - Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988 - r. 149(10)(1). Respondent No. 1, appointed with the appellant- H 320 KALLAKURICHI TALUK co~oP HOUSING SOCIETY 321 LTD. v. M. MARIA SOOSAI Society, remained absent without leave from November, A 1990. Appellant treated him to have resigned from service as per the Bye-Laws of the Society and r. 149(10)(1) of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988. After a. lapse of 5 years, respondent No. 1 raised industrial dispute. During pendency of the dispute, he was re- B appointed by respondent No. 3, on compassionate ground on certain conditions inter-alia that the period of his absence from duty till the date of his joining duty after re-appointment, shall be treated as leave without pay. After his re-appointment, respondent No. 1 was asked to · c join another Society. After joining there, he again failed to report for work for about. one year. That Society passed a resolution to send him back to his parent Society. He was once again deemed to have resigned from the services of the Society. After about 3 years of the passing 0 of the resolution, he filed a writ petition seeking his appointment in appellant-Society in pursuance of the order of re-appointment passed by respondent No. 3. He also sought all the salaries and other benefits from November, 1990. The writ petition was dismissed by E Single Judge of High Court on account of suppression of material facts. Writ appeal, against the same was allowed by Division Bench of High Court directing to reinstate respondent No. 1 with back wages from the date of his dismissal, till the date of his reinstatement, together with all other attendant benefits. Hence the F present appeal. During pendency of the case before Supreme Court, the appellant-Society reinstated the respondent in compliance of the impugned order passed by the G Division Bench of High Court. The respondent, after joining, again failed to report for work. He was j>laced under suspension and domestic inquiry was initiated against him. Inquiry Officer held that charges against him were duly proved. H ' 322 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 6 S.C.R. A Disposing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The decision of the Division Bench of the High Court imp_ugned in the instant appeal, cannot be sustained at least as far as payment of back wages and B other benefits are concerned. The conduct of the respondent No.1 does not justify the relief given to him by virtue of the impugned order. Despite the fact that the Single Judge pointed out that the prayer made in the Writ Petition could not be granted on account of suppression C of material facts which ran counter to such prayer, the Division Bench appears to have lost sight of the same. As the facts reveal, the respondent No.1 unilaterally stopped coming to work without submitting any leav
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.