METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus V. VENKATESAN

Citation: [2009] 12 S.C.R. 583 · Decided: 07-08-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 12 S.C.R. 583 
,, 
~ 
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION 
A 
v. 
V. VENKATESAN 
(Civil Appeal No. 6167 of 2009) 
AUGUST 7, ·2009 
B 
[TARUN CHATIERJEE AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
> -I 
Industrial disputes Act, 1947: s.33C(2) - Back wages -
Reinstatement of terminated employee - During period of 
termination, he was enrolled as an advocate and practiced till c 
date of reinstatement - Labour court allowed claim of 
employee to the extent of Rs.6.54 lacs towards full back wages 
-
Challenged - Held: Employee not entitled to full back 
wages - Income received from profession has to be treated 
as income from gainful employment -
Reasonable D 
'( 
·~ 
deductions to be made while determining back wages - In the 
ends of justice, employee awarded back wages of Rs.4 lacs 
instead of 6.54 lacs. 
The question which arose for consideration in the 
E 
present appeal was whether the respondent-employee is 
entitled fo claim full back wages from December 12, 1996 
) 
• 
the date on· which he was removed from service till the 
date of his reinstatement on June 15, 2004 although he 
was enrolled as an advocate on December 12, 2000 and 
thereby gainfully employed. 
F 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The relief of reinstatement with back-
wages is not automatic and may be wholly inappropriate G 
-t 
in a given fact situation even though the termination of 
an employee is tleld to be in contravention to the 
prescribed procedure. In view of the fact that resp·ondent 
was enrolled as an advocate on December 12, 2000 and 
583 
H 
584 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 12 S.C.R. 
A continued to be so until the date of his reinstatement 
.. . 
(June 15, 2004), he cannot be held to be entitled to full 
back wages. The income received by the respondent 
while pursuing legal profession has to be treated as 
income from gainful employment. Gainful employment 
B would also include self employment. [Para 10 and 12] 
[593-C; 594-E-F] 
UP. State Brassware Corporation v. Uday Narain 
Pandey (2006) 1 SCC 479; J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. 
~ ' 
Agrawal and Anr. (2007) 2 SCC 433; G.M. Haryana 
c Roadways v. Rudhan Singh (2005) 5 SCC 591 ;. S.M. Saiyad 
v. Baroda Municipal corporation, Baroda (1984) Supp) SCC 
378; Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing 
Board' and Anr. JT(2009) 9 SC 396; Not1h East Kamataka 
Road Transpot1 Corporation v. M. Nagangouda (2007) 10 
D sec 765, relied on. 
> . 
1.2. It is difficult to accept the submission for the 
respondent that he had no professional earnings as an 
advocate and except conducting his own case, the 
E respondent did not appear in any other case. The fact that 
he resigned from service after 2-3 years of reinstatement 
and re-engaged himself in legal profession shows that he 
had some practiee in law after he took sanad on 
' 
' 
December 12, 2000 until June 15, 2004, otherwise he 
F would not have resigned from the settled job and 
resumed profession of glorious uncertainties. In this view 
of the matter, reasonable deduction needs to be made 
while determining the back wages to which respondent 
may be entitled. Taking overall facts and circumstances 
G 
of the case and all other aspects including the aspect that 
he was enrolled as an advocate from December 12, 2000 
.,_ 
to June 15, 2004, demand of justice would be met if the 
respondent is awarded back wages in the sum of Rs. 4 
lacs instead of Rs. 6,54,7661-. [Para 13] [594-G; 595-A-C] 
H 
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. V. 585 
VENKATESAN 
Case Law Reference: 
A 
' 
-I 
} 
,;. 
r _., 
(2006) 1 sec 479 
relied on 
Para 7 
(2007) 2 sec 433 
relied on 
Para 8 
(2005) 5 sec 591 
relied on 
Para 9 
(1984) Supp) SCC 378 relied on 
Para 10 
JT (2009) 9 SC 396 
relied on 
Para 11 
(2007) 10 sec 765 
relied on 
Para 12 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
5167 of 2009. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 24.06.2008 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal No. 682 of 2008. 
Mohan Parasaran, ASG, T. Harish Kumar, Prasanth P., V. 
Vasudevan, for the Appellants. 
K.V. Viswanathan, P.V. Yogeswaran, for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R.M. LODHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. The question that falls for determination in this appeal 
B 
c 
D 
E· 
by special leave is: is the respondent entitled to claim full back F 
wages for the period from December 12, 1996 the date on 
which he was_ removed from service till the date of his 
__ _reins~a!ement on June 1-5, 2004 althougtrne was 

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