PRADEEP S/O RAJKUMAR JAIN versus MANGANESE ORE (INDIA) LIMITED & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 9 S.C.R. 592 · Decided: 10-12-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.M. JOSEPH · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
592
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
   [2021] 9 S.C.R. 592
592
PRADEEP S/O RAJKUMAR JAIN
v.
MANGANESE ORE (INDIA) LIMITED & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7607 of 2021)
DECEMBER 10, 2021
[K.M. JOSEPH AND
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.]
Labour Laws – Reinstatement – Backwages – On facts, by
the impugned order, the High Court ordered reinstatement of
appellant (who was earlier terminated from service) but denied him
the benefit of backwages – Denial of backwages to appellant – If
justified – Held: When the question arises as to whether the
backwages is to be given and as to what is to be the extent of
backwages, these are matters which will depend on the facts of the
case – In a case where it is found that the employee was not at all at
fault and yet, he was visited with illegal termination or termination
which is actually activised by malice, it may be unfair to deny him
the fruits of the employment which he would have enjoyed but for
the illegal / malafide termination – The effort of the Court must be
to then to restore the status quo in the manner which is appropriate
in the facts of each case – The nature of the charges, the exact
reason for the termination as evaluated and, of course, the question
as to whether the employee was gainfully employed would be matters
which will enter into the consideration by the Court – In the present
case, the appellant does not deny that he was indeed earning some
amount during the period he was out of employment – However,
there was hardly any worthwhile reason for the respondent to
terminate the services – The impugned order of High Court itself
shows that there was no basis for termination of the services of the
appellant – When the appellant was qualified and particularly, when
the appellant also has a case that all this was done for the reason
that he had taken up certain issues relating to the manner in which
the affairs of the respondent was being run, the High Court was in
error in not making appropriate order relating to backwages.
Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak
Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) & Ors. (2013) 10 SCC 324: [
2013] 9 SCR 1 – relied on.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
593
Talwara Cooperative Credit and Service Society Ltd. v.
Sushil Kumar (2008) 9 SCC 486: [2008] 14 SCR 53;
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur
v. Phool Chand (Dead) Through Legal Representatives
(2018) 18 SCC 299 : [2018] 11 SCR 448; Manager
R.B.I. Bangalore v. S. Mani & Ors. (2005) 05 SCC 100
: [2005] 2 SCR 797; Municipal Council Sujanpur v.
Surinder Kumar (2006) 5 SCC 173 : [2006] 1 Suppl.
SCR 914 and Shambhu Nath Goyal v. Bank of Baroda
and Others (1983) 4 SCC 491: [1984] 1 SCR 85 –
referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2013] 9 SCR 1 
relied on
Para 6
[2008] 14 SCR 53
referred to
Para 7
[2018] 11 SCR 448
referred to
Para 7
[2005] 2 SCR 797
referred to
Para 9
[2006] 1 Suppl. SCR 914
referred to
Para 10
[1984] 1 SCR 85 
referred to
Para 10
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.7607
of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.04.2017 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in Writ Petition No.1780 of
2009.
Mehul M. Gupta, R. P. Gupta, Advs. for the Appellant.
Devashish Bharuka, Ms. Sarvshree, Justine George, Manas Syal,
Advs. for the Respondents.
The Order of the Court was passed by
K. M. JOSEPH, J.
(1) Leave granted.
(2) The appellant is a qualified Chartered Accountant. He was
appointed as Manager (Finance) by order dated 22.10.1997. Thereafter,
he was posted in 2005 at the Balaghat Mines as the Deputy Chief
(Finance). In certain circumstances, which were on account of the death
PRADEEP S/O RAJKUMAR JAIN v. MANGANESE ORE
(INDIA) LIMITED & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
594
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
of his father, he had to report late for work on three days. He was
served with a show cause and it was followed up by yet another show
cause. It was replied to. He came to be suspended on 05.10.2007. He
was served with a charge memo on 27.10.2007. Thereafter, he was
dismissed on 12.08.2008. The appeal carried by him was dismissed. He
filed a writ petition. The writ petition filed was partly allowed by the
Division Bench and this has resulted in the present appeal.
(3) The controversy lies in a very narrow compass. While the
Division Bench has ordered reinstatement of the appellant, the Court
has denied him the benefit of backwages. In other words, this Court is
called upon to decide whether there is justification to deny backwages
to the appellant.
(4) We
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.