LexVISMAY DIGAMBAR THAKARE versus RAMCHANDRA SAMAJ SEWA SAMITI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 3 S.C.R. 771 VISMAY DIGAMBAR THAKARE v. RAMCHANDRA SAMAJ SEWA SAMITI AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 2708 of 2012) MARCH 2, 2012 [T.S. THAKUR AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] Service Law - Back wages - Claim for - Parties came to an amicable settlement - Appeal accordingly disposed of A B by Supreme Court - Employee-appellant directed to be paid C by respondent No.1-Samiti and respondent no.2-lnstitution jointly and severally a sum of Rupees one lakh towards back wages in full and final settlement of the claim of the appellant on that account. D The High Court, by the impugned order, set aside the judgment of the School Tribunal to the extent the same awarded back wages to the appellant. When the matter came up before this Court, the parties came to an amicable settlement on the question of back wages E claimed by the appellant. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent-school and the Samiti that they were willing to pay to the appellant a sum of Rupees one lakh in full and final settlement of the claim made by him towards back wages. F The appellant expressed his willingness to accept the said amount in satisfaction of his claim. Allowing the appeal in part, the Court HELD: The parties having agreed to a solution, there G is no reason why the same cannot be made a basis for disposal of this appeal in modification of the order passed by the High Court. The appellant shall be paid by 771 H 772 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 3 S.C.R. A respondent No.1-Samiti and No.2-lnstitution jointly and severally a sum of Rupees one lakh towards back wages in full and final settlement of the claim of the appellant on that account. The payment shall be made to the appellant within a period of three months failing which the amount B shall start earning interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of this judgment till actual payment. [Paras 6, 7] [774-C"E] UP. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. & Anr. v. Uday Narain Pandey (2006) 1 SCC 479 - 2005 (5) Suppl. SCR 609; Ree tu Marbles v. Brabhakant Sh kl a (2010) 2 SCC 70 - 2009 C (16) SCR 34; Metropolitan Transport Corporation v. V. D E F Venkatesan (2009) 9 SCC 601 - 2009 (12) SCR 583 and Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Anr. v. S.C. Sharma, (2005) 2 ~cc 363 - 2005 (1) SCR 37 4 - cited. Case Law Reference: 2005 (5) Suppl. SCR 609 cited Para 3 2009 (16) SCR34 cited Para 3 2009 (12) SCR 583 cited Para 3 2005 (1) SCR 374 cited Para 4 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2708 of 2012. From the Judgment & Order dated 07.05.2010 of the High Court of Judicature at Mombay, Nagpur in M.C.A. (Review) No. 1479 of 2009 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 386 of 2008. Manish Pitale, Wasi Haider, Chander Shekhar Ashri for G the Appellant. H Satyajit A. Desai, Anagha S. Desai, Vipul Ganda, Somanatha Padhan, Rahul M. Bhangde for the Respondents. The Judgments of the Court was delivered by VISMAY DIGAMBAR THAKARE v. RAMCHANDRA 773 SAMAJ SEWA SAMITI AND ORS. T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. Leave Granted. A 2. This appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 7th May, 2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, whereby M.C.A. (Review) No.1479 of 2009 in Letters Patent Appeal No.386 of 2008 has been allowed and the judgment of the School Tribunal to the extent the same awarded back wages to the appellant has been set aside. B 3. When the matter came up before us for hearing on 27th February, 2012, learned counsel for the parties made their C submissions extensively but sought liberty to mention the matter again if the parties were able to negotiate an amicable settlement on the question of back wages claimed .by the appellant? Only to recapitulate the line of arguments advanced before us we may mention that learned counsel for the appellant D had placed reliance upon the decisions of this Court in U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. & Anr. v. Uday Narain Pandey (2006) 1 SCC 479, Reetu Marbles v. Brabhakant Shk/a (2010) 2 SCC 70, and Metropolitan Transport Corporation v. V. Venkatesan (2009) 9 SCC 601, to contend that back wages E could be awarded to the appellant even in the absence of a specific assertion by the appellant to the effect that he was not gainfully employed during the period he remained out of service. It was argued by learned counsel for the appellant on the strength of the above decisions that back wages could range F between 25% to 60%. 4. On behalf the respondent-Institution, re
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.