U.P. STATE TEXTILE CORPN. LTD. versus SURESH KUMAR

Citation: [2011] 2 S.C.R. 410 · Decided: 02-02-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI, C.K. PRASAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011] 2 S.C.R. 410 
U.P. STATE TEXTILE CORPN. LTD. 
v. 
SURESH KUMAR 
(Civil Appeal No. 2080 of 2011) 
FEBRUARY 02, 2011 
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. 
PRASAD, JJ.] 
Service law- Appointment of employee for a fixed tenure 
C of three years - Termination within two years on the ground 
of' unauthorized absence - Challenge to - Re-instatement with 
continuity of service and back wages by courts below - On 
appeal, held: Appointment itself was for a fixed period of three 
years and no relief beyond that period could have been given 
. D to the employee by the courts below -Orders modified to the 
extent that the employee would be deemed to be in service 
up to the expiry of three years from the date of his joining and 
not thereafter - As regards the grant of back wages, it is a 
matter of discretion vested in the court - Conduct of the 
E employee and the financial status of the employer, a defunct 
organization, does not justify the payment of any back wages. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
2080 of 2011. 
F 
Froni the Judgment & Order dated 21.05.2007 of the High 
G 
H 
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 
30651 of 1992. 
Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay for the Appellant. 
Subodh Kr. Pathak, Yash Anand, Dharmemdra Kumar 
Sinha for the Respondent. 
The following order of the Court was delivered 
410 
U.P. STATE TEXTILE CORPN. LTD. v. SURESH 
KUMAR 
ORDER 
Leave granted. 
411 
The U.P. Textile Corporation Limited, the appellant herei~ 
A 
is, as of today, we are told, a defunct organization and 
proceedings before the Board of Industrial and Financial 
8 
Reconstruction (BIFR) are going on. The respondent, Suresh 
Kumar, was appointed as a Deputy Manager (Export) for a 
fixed tenure of three years vide order dated 21th april, 1987. 
As per this order his services would come to an end 
· automatically on the expiry of three years from the date of his 
C 
joining unless the term was extended as per Clause-1 thereof. 
It was also stipulated in the aforesaid order that the tenure of 
the ~ppointment was terminable without assigning any reason 
on three months notice from either side or on payment of salary 
in lieu thereof. Admittedly the respondent joined the services 
D 
of the appellant on the 7th September, 1987. His services were 
however terminated vide order dated 26th April, 1989 on the 
ground that he was in the habit of remaining absent for long 
periods of time without prior approval and that he had been on 
unauthorized absence from March, 1989. The order of 26th 
E 
April, 1989 was challenged by the respondent before the U.P. 
Public Services Tribunal. The Tribunal vide its judgment dated 
7 .5.1992 held that the order impugned before it was stigmatic 
inasmuch that it referred to the continued absence of the 
respondent over a long period and in this view of the matter it 
F 
could not be sustained. The relief of reinstatement with 
continuity of service and back wages was accordingly ordered 
by the Tribunal. This order was challenged by the appellant-
Corporation before the Allahabad High Court. The writ petition 
has been dismissed vide judgment dated 21.5.2007 on similar 
G 
grounds. It is in this background that the matter is before us. 
The learned counsel for the appellant has raised primarily 
. two arguments before us. He has contended that the reference 
to the unauthorized absence of the respondent could not in any 
manner be said to be stigmatic and that the finding to the 
H 
. ' 
412 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 2 S.C.R. 
A contrary was unsustainable. Alternatively he has contended that 
the respondent had joined the post on the 7th September, 1987 
for a period of three years which would have come to an end 
on the 6th September, 1990 and as such the direction for 
reinstatement could not have been granted to him. It has been 
B pleaded that as a consequence of the order of the Tribunal and 
of the High Court, the respondent has been put back into 
service. 
The learned counsel for the respondent has however 
C supported the judgments of the Tribunal and the High Court. 
In the facts of the case we need not examine the effect of 
the order dated 26th April 1989 whereby the services of the 
respondent had been terminated as being stigmatic or not as 
we are of the opinion that in the light of the fact that appointment 
D itself was for a fixed period of three years which would have 
come to an end on the 6th September, 1990, no reli

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