SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1976 Supreme(SC) 62

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V.R. KRISHNA IYER AND N.L. UNTWALIA, JJ.
Arya Vidya Sabha, Kashi and another, Appellants
 
Versus
 
Krishna Kumar Srivastava and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 95 of 1976
 
Decided on 26-2-1976.
Advocates appeared
 Mr. Yogeshwar Prasad and Miss Rani Arora, Advocates, for Appellants; Mr. M. S. Gupta Advocate, for Respondent No. 1.

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 - Distinction sought - Statutory body - Appellant who has come up to this Court by special leave challenges the judgment of the High Court whereby the first respondent s dismissal which had been set aside by the trial Court, has been restored - First respondent was a head-clerk in the Dayanand Mahavidyala Degree College an institution affiliated to Hindu University - Controversy raged round the question as to whether re-instatement could be ordered of a servant who has been dismissed by College authorities on the footing institution is a statutory body - Creature of statute but an entity like a company or a co-operative society or other body which has been created under operation of a statute - Makes all difference as has been pointed out by majority decision – Held, Distinction sought to be made by counsel to the effect statutes and ordinances with – Court are concerned stand on a different footing from the ones considered by this Court case does not impress us. In this view, the appeal has to be allowed and we do so - First respondent has put in long years of service and having an overall view of the facts of the case, counsel for appellant, at our suggestion, has undertaken to pay a sum of R the 1st respondent and a sum otowards costs of counsel for the 1st respondent - These payments are made ex gratia and counsel for appellant wanted us to take note of circumstance that according to his instructions 1st respondent has been gainfully employed otherwise - Appeal allowed

JUDGMENT

KRISHNA IYER, J. :—The appellant who has come up to this Court by special leave challenges the judgment of the High Court whereby the first respondent s dismissal which had been set aside by the trial Court, has been restored. The first respondent was a head-clerk in the Dayanand Mahavidyala Degree College, Varanasi, an institution affiliated to the Banaras Hindu University. The controversy raged round the question as to whether re-instatement could be ordered of a servant 1074 who has been dismissed by the College authorities on the footing that the institution is a statutory body. Whatever might have been the prior state of the precedents, in the light of the decision in Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College Shamli v. Lakshmi Narain, Civil Appeal No. 1543 of 1974, Decided on 12-12-1975 = (reported in AIR 1976 SC 888) we are satisfied that the institution which is the appellant before us is not a creature of statute but an entity like a company or a co-operative society or other body which has been created under the operation of a statute. This makes all the difference as has been pointed out by the majority decision in Lakshmi Narian s case (AIR 1976 SC 888). May be, there is much to be said in favour of the opposite view set out by Shri Justice Bhagwati, but we are bound by the decision of the Court as expounded by the majority view. The distinction sought to be made by counsel to the effect that the statutes and ordinances with which we are concerned stand on a different footing from the ones considered by this Court in Lakshmi Narain s case does not impress us. In this view, the appeal has to be allowed and we do so.

2. The parties will bear their costs in all the courts; but, having regard to the circumstance that the first respondent has put in long years of service and having an overall view of the facts of the case, counsel for the appellant, at our suggestion, has undertaken to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the 1st respondent and a sum of Rs. 1500/- towards costs of counsel for the 1st respondent. These payments are made ex gratia and counsel for the appellant wanted us to take note of the circumstance that according to his instructions the 1st respondent has been gainfully employed otherwise, the truth of which need not be investigated here. The payments will be made within two weeks from today.

Appeal allowed.

 

For Citation : AIR 1976 SC 1073

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top